I thought I was alone when I unsubbed. I couldn't believe everyone was watching the trash Netflix was churning out. I take their decline as a positive statement about humanity.
This is all solid. I would only add that it's our duty to avoid the news as its largely a source of propaganda serving the interests of concentrated capital and the two party system.
It was Joe's content to do with as he pleased, and his decision was to sell it and allow someone else to do with it as they pleased.
That's simple enough, but it's also simplistic because it assumes that property rights are the only thing we should care about.
Which value is more important - property rights (which depend on socialized services like justice and enforcement) or free speech (which thrive by removing regulation)?
You should ask Joe that. If Joe decided to sell he 100% had to have known that they will get to choose which parts of his content from the past to distribute until the end of their contract.
There's also another issue: the customer wanting to listen to those podcasts and who valued them as part of their Spotify subscription.
And that's not due to free market "those didn't were listened to enough, so we took them off" (that wasn't the case, and even if it was storage and distribution costs are negligible anyway, they could still keep them in perpetuity).
Instead that customer got shafted because "some" forced Spotify's hand.
> Which value is more important - property rights (which depend on socialized services like justice and enforcement) or free speech (which thrive by removing regulation)?
Don't ask us, ask J.R.. He remains free to return the 100 million to Spotify and broadcast his stupid crap elsewhere.
Uh, it is? A business contract isn't indentured servitude. You can always break a contract. There will be consequences, but they are civil consequences, most likely losing a bunch of money.
>It was Joe's content to do with as he pleased, and his decision was to sell it and allow someone else to do with it as they pleased.
And they did. They published those episodes.
Consistently with a free market, customers of Spotify should also be able to do with them as they pleased - listen to them or not, or even leave Spotify in protest.
Instead, some pressure groups, the media, and a couple of unrelated musicians forced Spotify to unpublish those.
How did anyone "force" Spotify to do anything? Various people put public pressure on Spotify and Spotify took the action that it presumably thought was optimal for its bottom line. Which companies do all the time.
By making it costly not to do it, not in a free market (vote with wallets) way, but in a "will hurt you with bad publicity, government pressure, etc" way. Forcing doesn't need to be a gun in the head of the CEO.
>Various people put public pressure on Spotify and Spotify took the action that it presumably thought was optimal for its bottom line. Which companies do all the time.
Yes, like corporations did when they censored works because of pressure groups, like Tipper Gore's, stuff that promoted "homosexuality" or "decadent" black music in the past, etc.
Doesn't mean it was left to the individual customers to decide, or that corporations deemed the works they sold as unprofitable in themselves (that is, not selling).
Because bad publicity is not a buy-not buy choice, and the decision to take the episodes down wasn't because they didn't have enough audience to be profitable.
Jesus. A lot of indiscriminate nuking of content with the Feb 4 date. Tim Ferriss, Comedian Russell Peters, Dan Savage, Giorgio Tsoulakis (the "It's Aliens" guy), Kyle Kulinski. What a shit show.
I'd love for someone to get Neil Young's take on this now.
And maybe, ya know, Spotify's reasoning before we assume that all of these removals are Young's fault.
Edit: Oh look, it's not just because Young made a stink about COVID shit, imagine that...
>Rogan went on Instagram Saturday to discuss the content of the old episodes, addressing two videos on social media of him saying a racial slur and another where he described a Black neighborhood as being similar to the Planet of the Apes movie.
Why do they need to remove the whole episodes though? Can't they just put a voice over through that part of the show?
"beep.. beep.. Spotify has had to interrupt this podcast as the next few moments contain words and ideas we deem to impure for our listeners to hear.. beep beep.." and that's why you shouldn't do DMT after eating a burrito.
The answer to that can be found in a statement that Spotify's CEO made during a company town hall earlier this week[1]...
>"A publisher has editorial control over a creator’s content — they can take action on the content before it’s even published,” he says, like editing episodes, removing guests, or preventing one from publishing at all. Ek noted that Spotify does have editorial control over the properties it owns outright, like The Ringer and Gimlet, but emphasized the distinction between those studios and Rogan. “Even though JRE is an exclusive, it is licensed content. It is important to note that we do not have creative control over Joe Rogan’s content. We don’t approve his guests in advance, and just like any other creator, we get his content when he publishes, and then we review it, and if it violates our policies, we take the appropriate enforcement actions.”
So contractually speaking, they can't edit the content, essentially making it all-or-nothing when it comes to an episode. If Rogan feels strongly enough about having an episode put back up but with the kind of edit you suggested, then the onus to do so is on him, not Spotify. That's the deal that Rogan signed.
Exactly my experience. I got sucked into using more than once, thinking it would be better next time, but there are just so many sharp edges.
At one company, someone accidentally set the write rate rate high to transfer data into the db. This had the effect of permanently increasing the shard count to a huge number, basically making the DB useless.
