*Approved* Information only and Spotify fallout

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

With the pay structure Spotify uses to pay musicians, a musician will need to have their music streamed 33 billion times to earn what Spotify paid Rogan upfront. 

 

 

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make but this reminds me of years ago when I was bitching to my barber about how much money NFL players make.  His response?  Until I cant get 70,000 people to watch me cut hair they will always make tons more than me.  

[Motorin']

12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make but this reminds me of years ago when I was bitching to my barber about how much money NFL players make.  His response?  Until I cant get 70,000 people to watch me cut hair they will always make tons more than me.  

 

That would be a good analogy, if you were also playing in the NFL. 

[Buffarukus]

17 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

With the pay structure Spotify uses to pay musicians, a musician will need to have their music streamed 33 billion times to earn what Spotify paid Rogan upfront. 

 

 

 

im not trying to pick on you. i erased my other book of a reply, if you read it fine. but you are so misinformed my man.

 

perspective.

 

rogan gets 11 million listeners per episode. every major tv show is payed more for production,  advertising, and are on major networks. he smashing their ratings. hes been doing his show for 20 years. 2 to 3 hours episodes. how many hours of entertainment compared to a 5 min song? his deal is for exclusivity. musicians can be on multiple platforms getting multiple checks from various means including selling a song for $1 dollar. which is why 1 hit wonders get millions of dollars and can retire into a comfortable life. 1 song. 5 minutes. its $20 for a album. get a fraction of rogans audience to buy just one and your set for life. touring? more $$$!  musicians have huge amounts of people to divide money up with though. they sign the deal with the record label, not spotify. joe is literally a two man production who was building a audience from scratch for 2 decades before he got that deal. 

 

these things aren't close to each other in pay structure to begin with. to think after a sustained campaign by the media, then gov, and all of a sudden artists. that is just a believable coincedence? suddenly its about how "spotify" pays? somthing joe has nothing to do with? seriously? any word on xm and howard stern or the multitude of other outlets broadcasting music streams with shows that get millions of listeners or is it j conviently just this specific one?

 

yeah he's getting "cancelled". 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Motorin']

3 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

im not trying to pick on you. i erased my other book of a reply, if you read it fine. but you are so misinformed my man.

 

perspective.

 

rogan gets 11 million listeners per episode. every tv show is less payed more and are on major networks. hes been doing his show for 20 years and it is 2 to 3 hours per episode. how many hours of entertainment compared to a 5 min song in rotation. his deal is for exclusivity. musicians can be on multiple platforms getting multiple checks from various means including selling for $1 dollar. which is why 1 hit wonders get millions of dollars and can retire into a comfortable life off 1 song. musicians have huge amounts of people to divide money up with as well. they sign the deal with the record label not spotify. while joe literally is a two man production.

 

these things aren't close to each other in pay structure to begin with. to think after a sustained campaign by the media, then gov, and all of a sudden now artists is just a coincedence, and its suddenly from how "spotify" pays, somthing joe has nothing to do with? seriously? any word on xm and howard stern or the multitude of other outlets broadcasting music with shows that get millions of listeners or just this specific one cause i haven't seen it.

 

he's getting "cancelled". 

 

Maybe he should move to Fox? They only cancel repeat sexual offenders. 

 

 

[Buffarukus]

55 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Maybe he should move to Fox? They only cancel repeat sexual offenders. 

 

 

 

maybe people should recognize we need outlets that aren't controlled by others and should fight to protect them from s#/÷ like this. diversity of thought is a good thing. ones that actually succeed and captures a audience beyond reach will always be co-opted or shut down. 

 

you have picked your side i guess. i tryed to convince you. the warning can't be any clearer. 

 

for the record joe wanted bernie sanders is a liberal and absolutely is not racist. 20 years from cali the bluest state. anyone who thinks he alignes with fox is not familiar with his stances but thats not really required to define people anyways.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Chef Jim]

16 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

That would be a good analogy, if you were also playing in the NFL. 

I can get a meal at McDonald’s for $5 but $350 at the French Laundry.  Its all food. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

Rogan's "crime" is that he provided a huge audience to experts the State has made great efforts to silence regarding COVID.  They've been very successful marginalizing and punishing descent.  While they bombard the public with get your shots public service announcements through the media 24/7. 

 

Some of Rogan's guests lately have challenged sacred narratives by providing their views on the safety and efficacy of vaccines that cite specific dangers they suggest the government and pharma companies have failed to disclose and may be hiding from the public. 

 

Nothing is more dangerous to authority than some expert challenging their edicts and their "right" to push everybody around.  And as a result Joe's podcast, which authorities have to this point tolerated has crossed the line and is now viewed as dangerous to the establishment.  So now he's spreading the dreaded "misinformation".  And in the name of public safety these dangerous ideas must be suppressed.  Because they're killing people.  So he has to be forced through whatever means are necessary to stop.  

 

But here's the thing.  The government and pharma are afraid.  They're acting out of fear rather than any genuine concern for public safety.  It's their safety that's the concern.  Are Rogan's experts telling the truth and do they have all their facts straight?  I don't know but I'd like to see some intelligent debate out in the open and I'd expect anyone else interested in knowing all the facts would too.

 

A couple of Rogan's guests gave very detailed 3 hour long presentations filled with lots of facts, science, and statistics.  But the officials shouting misinformation won't cite you one specific thing that is misinformation or incorrect.  Just a blanket condemnation of their ideas.  If they know the facts and the fact support the official narrative why don't they just say so?  And go into all the details point by point and refute what these speakers have stated?  Well, they're not going to engage in any public debate or counter any specific point of contention.  Because they're afraid.  Because once you get into the details their entire story could potentially fall apart and they can't risk that happening.   So play the misinformation card, and if that fails see if they can brand him a racist. Wait and see. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[Tiberius]

11 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

If you want to know who is on the right side of history just take a step back and see who’s censoring and then you’ll know the other side is right. Those who censor have never ever been on the right side of history.  It’s no different now. Leftists love to censor, make your own conclusions. 

Generally agree, but you are wrong here. The people who  "censored" cigarette commercials from lying about the health costs of those products won, didn't they? Those people that complained it was censorship to not be allowed lie about what was in their consumer products lost, correct? 

 

Perspective 

[Westside]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Generally agree, but you are wrong here. The people who  "censored" cigarette commercials from lying about the health costs of those products won, didn't they? Those people that complained it was censorship to not be allowed lie about what was in their consumer products lost, correct? 

 

Perspective 

So you agree with censoring those who have a different view point?

Wow

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Generally agree, but you are wrong here. The people who  "censored" cigarette commercials from lying about the health costs of those products won, didn't they? Those people that complained it was censorship to not be allowed lie about what was in their consumer products lost, correct? 

 

Perspective 

Perspective has nothing to do with it.  What its about is facts and science presented in a court of law.  Opponents of the cigarette industry assembled a fact-based and scientific case through the use of experts and discovery of the industry's records to prove in state and federal courts that smoking directly caused lung and other types of cancer and the industry knew of these effects. All through the use of due process through the legal and court system.  

 

To this point nobody has provided a single shred of evidence or refuted a single point presented by Rogan's guests concerning their expert conclusions concerning undisclosed dangers of mRNA vaccines and COVID in general.  And what those dangers present to the public and the failure of government and the pharma industry to provide adequate disclosure of risks and acquire patient consent of those risks.   

 

What's missing from the argument here is that officials and others charging "misinformation" have proved nothing other than they're afraid to debate details.  I've asked several times how anybody could know that guests like Dr. Malone are lying?  I sure don't.  What exactly they're lying about and what knowledge or expertise anyone might have in order to "know" they're lying?  So I'm calling on any expert virologists, immunologists, vaccine experts, or nRNA technology, or Gene Therapy experts on the board to provide some insights.  Or is the entire  misinformation case depending on Harry and Meghan to provide expert medical advice?  

Edited February 7, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Perspective has nothing to do with it.  What its about is facts and science presented in a court of law.  Opponents of the cigarette industry assembled a fact-based and scientific case through the use of experts and discovery of the industry's records to prove in state and federal courts that smoking directly caused lung and other types of cancer and the industry knew of these effects. All through the use of due process through the legal and court system.  

 

To this point nobody has provided a single shred of evidence or refuted a single point presented by Rogan's guests concerning their expert conclusions concerning undisclosed dangers of mRNA vaccines and COVID in general.  And what those dangers present to the public and the failure of government and the pharma industry to provide adequate disclosure of risks and acquire patient consent of those risks.   

 

What's missing from the argument here is that officials and others charging "misinformation" have proved nothing other than they're afraid to debate details.  I've asked several times how anybody could know that guests like Dr. Malone are lying?  I sure don't.  What exactly they're lying about and what knowledge or expertise anyone might have in order to "know" they're lying?  So I'm calling on any expert virologists, immunologists, vaccine experts, or nRNA technology, or Gene Therapy experts on the board to provide some insights.  Or is the entire  misinformation case depending on Harry and Meghan to provide expert medical advice?  

Misinformation about COVID and vaccine are just as deadly. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Generally agree, but you are wrong here. The people who  "censored" cigarette commercials from lying about the health costs of those products won, didn't they? Those people that complained it was censorship to not be allowed lie about what was in their consumer products lost, correct? 

 

Perspective 

Your perspective is skewed and of course, feeds into the narrative of those distrustful of marching in stride with govt and the cancellers.  Congrats Tibs, you’ve joined the Moral Majority!
 

With tobacco use, there was decades of evidence and ultimately, evidence revealed that the tobacco companies were aware of the addictive nature of the product and health hazards associated with usage. 
 

With COVID, the data associated with the virus is counted in months.  In the meantime, we had often conflicting guidance, lockdowns for some but not for others, political bombs lobbed at the admin in place that has sowed confusion among the populace, we went from “no masks” to “double/triple masked” to studies showing the glorified Kleenex in strings did little to stop the spread, to a President who was going to bring COVID to its knees who took to his own knees just a few weeks back when he realized he could not….and suddenly there is a push to silence dissenting voices in any way or shape possible. 
 

If you’re comparing this to the evolution of the fight against tobacco companies—the reality is that the final chapters of the book have yet to be written.  The tobacco lobby shaped the narrative for an awfully long time, paying and buying off politicians along the way— it remains to be seen if pharmaceutical companies are doing the same as we speak.  

 

To draw a parallel, we’re in a full blown opioid crisis in the country right now in what seemed to be an unholy alliance of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession.  

 

Now is not the time for shutting down dialogue and conversation.  
 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

38 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Generally agree, but you are wrong here. The people who  "censored" cigarette commercials from lying about the health costs of those products won, didn't they? Those people that complained it was censorship to not be allowed lie about what was in their consumer products lost, correct? 

 

Perspective 

Were cigarettes banned or are people allowed to make their own decisions regarding them? 🤔

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Your perspective is skewed and of course, feeds into the narrative of those distrustful of marching in stride with govt and the cancellers.  Congrats Tibs, you’ve joined the Moral Majority!
 

With tobacco use, there was decades of evidence and ultimately, evidence revealed that the tobacco companies were aware of the addictive nature of the product and health hazards associated with usage. 
 

With COVID, the data associated with the virus is counted in months.  In the meantime, we had often conflicting guidance, lockdowns for some but not for others, political bombs lobbed at the admin in place that has sowed confusion among the populace, we went from “no masks” to “double/triple masked” to studies showing the glorified Kleenex in strings did little to stop the spread, to a President who was going to bring COVID to its knees who took to his own knees just a few weeks back when he realized he could not….and suddenly there is a push to silence dissenting voices in any way or shape possible. 
 

If you’re comparing this to the evolution of the fight against tobacco companies—the reality is that the final chapters of the book have yet to be written.  The tobacco lobby shaped the narrative for an awfully long time, paying and buying off politicians along the way— it remains to be seen if pharmaceutical companies are doing the same as we speak.  

 

To draw a parallel, we’re in a full blown opioid crisis in the country right now in what seemed to be an unholy alliance of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession.  

 

Now is not the time for shutting down dialogue and conversation.  
 

 

 

Nope, it’s the same thing. You are writing so much because you are wrong. When you are right, like me, you don’t need to say much 😊 

[BillStime]

12 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

If you want to know who is on the right side of history just take a step back and see who’s censoring and then you’ll know the other side is right. Those who censor have never ever been on the right side of history.  It’s no different now. Leftists love to censor, make your own conclusions. 

Go ban more books and sugar coat history.

 

Hurry - you can do it! 
 

idiots

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Go ban more books and sugar coat history.

 

Hurry - you can do it! 
 

idiots

 

And the current outrage re: Rogan is over a banned word. Interesting.

[All_Pro_Bills]

29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Misinformation about COVID and vaccine are just as deadly. 

Sure it is but I'm still waiting to hear what specifically is incorrect as nobody's proven anybody on Rogan's podcasts is spreading misinformation. Or debunked a single point made.  I'd like to hear from scientist and researchers from the CDC, or the NIH, or Pfizer scientists before I'm ready to label any conclusions stated by his podcast guests as incorrect science.  To date they haven't entered the conversation to dispute anything stated.   

 

What it comes down to is that an open and honest debate and discussion of the science, data, and expert views presented in a judgment free environment by a diversity of voices benefits us all.  That's how progress is made and innovations are developed.  By objectively looking at alternatives, debating and evaluating the merits of each alternative and choosing a course of action that's most effective.  And it seems illogical to oppose those conversations assuming you have a genuine interest in the public good.   

Edited February 7, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

And the current outrage re: Rogan is over a banned word. Interesting.

When is the next book burning event?

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Sure it is but I'm still waiting to hear what specifically is incorrect as nobody's proven anybody on Rogan's podcasts is spreading misinformation. Or debunked a single point made.  I'd like to hear from scientist and researchers from the CDC, or the NIH, or Pfizer scientists before I'm ready to label any conclusions stated by his podcast guests as incorrect science.  To date they haven't entered the conversation to dispute anything stated.   

 

What it comes down to is that an open and honest debate and discussion of the science, data, and expert views presented in a judgment free environment by a diversity of voices benefits us all.  That's how progress is made and innovations are developed.  By objectively looking at alternatives, debating and evaluating the merits of each alternative and choosing a course of action that's most effective.  And it seems illogical to oppose those conversations assuming you have a genuine interest in the public good.   

So you think tobacco companies should be able to advertise that their cigs are healthy? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

Just now, Tiberius said:

So you think tobacco companies should be able to advertise that their cigs are healthy? 

Say what?  The conversation is about what is factually wrong about statements concerning COVID made by Rogan's podcast guests.  Which it appears is something you won't address.