Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

Assuming that just because you think it wouldn't work everyone else also secretly believes the same thing and is therefore acting because they think Rogan's a bad person...

Getting Rogan kicked off Spotify does nothing to combat anti-vax propaganda, so what’s it about? Punishing Spotify for hosting bad actors and Rogan for being a bad actor. But even that’s not the end result for Rogan, it wouldn’t hurt him.

He’d get a payout from Spotify and hop right back on his old platforms with an increased audience and a new martyrdom to exploit.

Which, going back to what started this, if punishing bad actors is the point then Felix is completely justified in pointing to all the other bad actors you can access on Spotify when you’re deciding whether or not to patronize Spotify, punish them, or simply not care too much.

Yeah dude, as stated previously, I don't accept your premise that it does nothing to combat anti-vax propaganda and I don't think most ppl participating in the boycott accept it, either. You're assuming that this is some shared assumption and theorizing based off that.

who are the other bad actors who have exclusive mega million $ deals with Spotify? Are we talking about R.Kelly music being on the service?

xpost

RSS is a pain in the butt and for most people, podcasts that aren’t automatically delivered on a convenient platform like Spotify are a pain in the ass too. The primary mainstream alternative would be returning to YouTube.

It’s conceivable if he keeps doubling down on both covidiocy and “race realism” crap that all major platforms could be pressured to take him down. And it could possibly lead to stricter policies in general, I’d say especially with issues of medical misinformation which could pose a direct liability to the corporations.

Isn’t this mainly a intended discussion based in democratic socialism? Is throwing our hands up at the proliferation of unregulated toxic industries typically an effective approach?

There are similar issues with the regulation of widespread environmental pollution, but the harm from those industries has been demonstrated much more thoroughly. They also have substantially more political clout than Spotify — just wait til we get a Secretary of State who used to be the CEO of YouTube.

If Rogan were to be banned on Youtube, it would mean banning a million of Youtube's most popular channels as well.

they still have guys like Stephen Crowder on there, who has been trying to get himself banned for months now

Podcast apps just manage RSS feeds. There’s no work involved to searching “Joe Rogan” on Pocket Casts or whichever app you use.

Yeah dude, as stated previously, I don't accept your premise that it does nothing to combat anti-vax propaganda and I don't think most ppl participating in the boycott accept it, either. You're assuming that this is some shared assumption and theorizing based off that.

Well, what I responded to is your post that their ‘dogshit take’ ‘compared anti-vax propaganda to hip-hop records’ - which isn’t what happened!

The comparison was explicitly about supporting bad actors by patronizing them/Spotify and was never less than critical of Rogan for being anti-vax.

As already noted above, Spotify exclusivity has limited Rogan’s reach. You’re not describing any mechanism where his anti-vax propaganda would actually be diminished by anything happening.

The Yiannopolous example is a good one, though, because his life was destroyed (which is awesome and funny) but it hasn’t done anything to stem the tide of fascism. His deplatforming didn’t actually matter in the end.

Which says that maybe the key is to create countervailing, positive forces and voices rather than just trying (and inevitably failing) to make Rogan shut up.

Even within adiscussion of bad actors - which again I don't think this is really about - comparing ppl who've done fucked up shit in their private lives or have created offensive art to anti-vaxx propaganda is a dogshit take, I stand by that.

As already noted above, Spotify exclusivity has limited Rogan’s reach. You’re not describing any mechanism where his anti-vax propaganda would actually be diminished by anything happening.

Saying that it limited that reach is no proof that removing itwill increase it and, as I said before, economic incentive clearly trumps listenership figures when it comes to figures like Rogan. Fine for you to find that reasoning unconvincing!

If you got an irritating podcast de-listed from most of the main directories/aggregators it'd probably put a dent in listenership from people being too lazy to manually add a url to their podcast app unless they were really interested and would kill it showing up in recommendations

There are only a handful of podcast directories all the main apps pull from, mostly Apple and Google's

I do like Ryan Broderick’s take, that you have to understand that Sptfy is now Rogan’s publisher; they paid him to produce the show, they distribute it, they advertise on it.

He wrote it here: https://www.garbageday.email/p/ah-the-cognitive-dissonance-it-hurts

And talked to Jared Holt about it here:
https://shtpost.substack.com/p/the-joe-rogan-misinformation-experience

Yup.

If they remove him, he's still going to get a payout of some sort, he could go back to listing his show publicly, etc.

I think the underlying sentiment (which coincides with the platform vs. publisher dichotomy) is that we live in a world where paying for something gives it legitimacy. There are a number of arguments against adopting that socioeconomic stance, but "large corporation spends millions, so this thing must have worth" is something that's ingrained in how we talk about business and culture -- despite companies spending ridiculous amounts of money on things that have absolutely no real worth.

I mean, if Howard Stern suddenly used his couple hours a day to interview quacks, I can imagine a similar migration away from Sirius/XM.

Which says that maybe the key is to create countervailing, positive forces and voices rather than just trying (and inevitably failing) to make Rogan shut up.

I'm really confused, you guys are in favor of deplatforming someone?

prefer to flag their posts and let someone else do the dirty work

I thought the idea was to counter bad faith ideas with a well thought out good faith counter speech?

yeah maybe i could record my own good faith podcast and just put it on spotify

paraphrasing a tweet I saw the other day:
“I was at a party in the mid 2000s and one guy said he watched a documentary on how the 9/11 narrative was false and started spouting conspiracy theories. Everyone groaned and went to the basement to hang out, except for one woman, and she’s his wife now”

the thing about fighting narrative with narrative in the public sphere is you’re acting like it’s a competition or that narratives hold equal weight, when in normal human interaction you’d just say “no” or leave this person alone (with their future wife, apparently)

I do like this statement from Max Collins, the Eve 6 dude interviewed in that Garbage Day post:

As for actionable advice for any podcaster or musician out there, Collins stressed that there are other platforms you can use. In fact, the platform that I personally think is the best, while definitely skewing more emo and punk, is Bandcamp. I’d almost go so far as to say it’s one of the best UGC platforms to ever exist? Not even just for music, but in general.

“I hate that the responsibility and sacrifice is again falling on artists who are the ones who’ve been getting summarily fucked by the industry since it’s inception, but like here we are,” Collins said. “Now is the time to collectivize and demand fair compensation from Spotify. They are weakened. They are losing billions in this moment. The artists’ side of the story is only beginning to be told and more and more people will be joining the fight. I’m getting messages every day from artists who are like, ‘fuck yes let’s do this. The time is now.’”

I also favor Bandcamp as my preferred online vendor.

The Yiannopolous example is a good one, though, because his life was destroyed (which is awesome and funny) but it hasn’t done anything to stem the tide of fascism. His deplatforming didn’t actually matter in the end...

― papal hotwife (milo z), Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:54 PM (yesterday)

Well this conveniently discounts a whole host of independent variables (eg well-funded campaigns of disinformation, a pandemic). Not to get too personal but is this sort of circular logic a standard pattern with milo z?

Just to be clear Mr. Z, my questions about social democracy and regulation of toxic industries was directed specifically at you. Pretty clear that shit has sailed tho.

Er, the SHIP has sailed.

I'm really confused, you guys are in favor of deplatforming someone?

― JacobSanders, Thursday, February 3, 2022 1:01 AM (seventeen hours ago)

I sure as hell am. Should we just let Alex Jones spread toxic propaganda on YouTube unchecked? What planet is this guy from.

I also keep forgetting we're democratic socialists and not social democrats.

*purges self*

Well this conveniently discounts a whole host of independent variables (eg well-funded campaigns of disinformation, a pandemic). Not to get too personal but is this sort of circular logic a standard pattern with milo z?

What does the pandemic have to do with Yianoppolous, who was deplatformed in 2018 and whose deplatforming didn't matter at all in the end? The ruin of his life, or Richard Spencer's life, or theoretically Joe Rogan's life is immensely satisfying but it doesn't appear to actually be useful politically. In part because the people with money and a vested interest in reactionary ideology aren't deplatformed and can't be, unless Mr. Choppy comes out and we start executing right-wing billionaires.

Just to be clear Mr. Z, my questions about social democracy and regulation of toxic industries was directed specifically at you. Pretty clear that shit has sailed tho.

Consumer boycotts are not "regulation of toxic industries," though. Neil Young didn't ask for Spotify to be expropriated and turned into a public utility.

"Stricter policies in general" are very much a double-edged sword for the left - because the right-wing billionaires own the media in question, they come for us first using those rules, as anyone who has been put in Facebook or Twitter jail for joking about guillotining CEOs can attest (or as Mother Jones has written about re: their traffic numbers from Facebook). It's kinda like how enhanced domestic terrorism laws post 1/6 would just get used against environmentalists and Muslims and left-wing activists of all stripes.

Yeah I have no issue with Alex Jones saying whatever he says, I've listened to what he has to say and it doesn't interest me. I understand what's wrong with his views, because I was allowed to hear his views, I made a judgement. If others agree with him then that's on them, I remember hearing Alex Jones when I moved to Austin in 1995, I remember him screaming with a megaphone about George Bush and the Iraq War in front of UT. He seemed like a sweaty chain smoking lunatic. If someone wants to discredit him that's easy. He has years of being online. I struggle to understand the cynical view that the public needs to be protected from dumb people whoever they are.

Would this be the Alex Jones who is still mired in court appeals after being found liable for perpetuating a hoax that further ruined the lives of people who lost their children in a school shooting

yeah that's the cost of free speech, if you lie the courts will punish you. Using Alex Jones as an example of free speech is almost perfect, it's free but it's accountable.

I'm somewhat skeptical about the efficacy of consumer boycotts and calls for accountability, but there are a handful of terrible fringe media outlets that basically just run ads for shitty pillows, reverse mortgages, and spurious companies that can "help you with your medicare" because no advertiser wants to get near them

I get "ooh the nanny state" vibes from the idea others need protection from dumb people, but when the platforms we're talking about are just poorly-moderated ad traffic venue companies like YouTube, twitter, and facebook, and the type of content starts to fall from passive income (ad revenue) to active engagement (being a producer by paying up front), I fail to see how telling them you're going to walk if they don't drop a bad actor is any different from someone crankily writing to their newspaper several decades ago to say you're cancelling your subscription if they don't stop running a column.

xp and that's exactly one guy who may be held legally accountable out of...

It's less "protect people from this dumb guy" and "why would I subscribe to your service or publish my music on it when you gave this asshole millions of dollars?"

yeah it's like everyone wants to talk about deplatforming but no one wants to talk about how the platforming happened. such a libertarian guy type of argument. alex jones in 1995 was not nearly as dangerous, but why is that. and the ability of *some* people to sue him in the most egregious situation is not an example of free speech coming with accountability. they had to suffer real harm before they were even able to sue (because you really can't sue someone just for lying), and it's not something that's accessible to everyone.

I mean, in the late 90s when I was in high school, listening to that type of stuff was mostly a goof, and anyone who took the conspiracies seriously were, for the most part, standing on street corners with incoherent scrawls about lizard people and not sending bomb threats to parents

meanwhile in 2022

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyuhYHrUsAA5elO.jpg

US free speech is wild. the magazines you get in the grocery store that are like "Bill Clinton's cancer hell" with photoshopped pictures of slick willie looking even more like a vile revenant than he actually is. you'd be sued to bankruptcy for such publications in the UK.

otoh if we take all misinformation about health down from the apps then half of the accounts would disappear even if we ignore covid

the weird gossip ones made more sense when you had the Weekly World News and Batboy on the cover shelves right next to them

Christman is both on fire and probably horrifyingly correct about the metaverse in 603

Ukraine ep was disappointing albeit unfortunately recorded prior to actual invasion. Choosing a buffoonish commentator to dunk on felt like a pretty weak choice in this circumstance.

Didn't make it through either This Is Sus episode but lol @ Felix being an Old 97's/Bloodshot head

pic.twitter.com/iNCr8lhSYO

— masc4masc’s sake (@bachlover1958) February 28, 2022

she knows she's on camera

good to know felix & company found the gossip girl reboot as mystifying and bland as i did

They sound incoherent on Ukraine

Seems like a combination of being put on the defensive plus genuinely not having anything useful to say, so they default to dunking on Brookings. Which is as deserving of being dunked on as ever, but they don’t seem to have any other point.

most people speaking about ukraine right now don’t have a point, though. I hear we have an entire thread

their point about Ukraine is that the USA has a CIA, which is their point about all foreign policy topics

I was annoyed that Matt was able to just say "The US put Putin in power!" as a one-off line as though it was accepted left fact, that seemed like such an absurd oversimplification at best.

Putin is a deep CIA sleeper--probably doesn't even know it himself

What is the left argument for that - is it because we supported Yeltsin and Yeltsin helped bring Putin to power?

(for he US having "put him in power" obv, not for him being a deep CIA sleeper)