Liberal Joe Rogan is "questionable"? GMAB.. I mean he's open to questions so...
I find it to be socially toxic that anyone expects massive companies to tailor their content to one's narrow sensibilities. Furthermore, the complaints rarely if ever go the other way in terms of platforming middle-of-the road personalities that land on the other side of the line. Though, they could in-volume. Man, was it terrrrible when the Smartless crew had Rachel Maddow on their show. Grumble grumble...unsubscribe...grumble
This feels like a disingenuous take on TFA's in-passing reference.
Spotify spending USD$100-$200 million on, say, that particular angertainment professional got a lot of people riled up because a) he's actively, demonstrably harmful, b) they had zero interest in patronising him, let along listening to him, but mostly c) their subscription costs had gone up to cover this indefensible payment.
Like TFA, I get my podcasts elsewhere, partly because the spotify app is unwieldy for music, but just plain user hostile for podcasts - but I'd appreciate a multi-tiered service offering from Spotify where I don't use, and therefore don't pay for, any podcast content from them.
Similar to the different package options for TV services, where live sports were expensive but you could opt out of them.
No it didn’t. It got a tiny minority of a certain insignificant type upset. Step out into the real world and the number one podcast is, by definition, well received.
> It got a tiny minority of a certain insignificant type
I guess how one perceived the reaction to that transaction comes down to one's own biases.
If you wish to discount some people's problem with paying a misinformation-peddler hundreds of millions of dollars while, as per TFA, genuinely creative people are paid nothing because 'it's too hard to handle the transactions' - then that gives us a little more insight into you.
> Step out into the real world and the number one podcast is, by definition, well received.
Number one in the USA, you mean, right?
Podcasts are a niche medium, with extremely poorly reported listening figures, but so far I can tell this guy has an average of 11 million listeners.
That's less than 4% of the USA (around 0.1% of the real world).
I get that anger and controversy are highly saleable products - crime content makes up a surprising amount of the podcast leaderboard.
However, in a country where 230 million people believe angels are real, it shouldn't be surprising, nor held up as an arbiter of quality or sanity, that 11 million people think this guy is credible / worth $200m a year.
I find it to be socially toxic that anyone expects massive companies to tailor their content to one's narrow sensibilities. Furthermore, the complaints rarely if ever go the other way in terms of platforming middle-of-the road personalities that land on the other side of the line. Though, they could in-volume. Man, was it terrrrible when the Smartless crew had Rachel Maddow on their show. Grumble grumble...unsubscribe...grumble