Cas Mudde: ‘Joe Rogan is a symptom’
Joe Rogan isn’t a far-right ideologue, pushing a consistent political agenda. Rather, he is a grifter, who hides behind excuses like curiosity, entertainment, freedom and neutrality to push whatever controversy that sells. Now, that controversy is hurting Spotify’s bottom line, which is why they have pushed him to publicly apologize and pledge to “try harder”.
Obviously, that will not end the disinformation on his show, on Spotify, or on the many other platforms (like YouTube). Joe Rogan is not the problem, he is the symptom. The symptom of a society in which pandering to a mostly rightwing, but certainly anti-left, minority can be highly profitable. Just like the current Republican party, they live off liberal outrage rather than any consistent political message.
This is not to minimize the problem. In fact, this problem is much larger than a disinformation-spreading grifter with millions of listeners. The real problem is not the supply of disinformation but the demand for it. As long as there is a mass demand, you can neither ban nor boycott your way out of disinformation.
This is not to say that the boycott of Neil Young and other artists wasn’t useful – it was. It shifted the cost-benefit analysis of the controversy and pushes grifters like Rogan and their promoters like Spotify away from the most egregious disinformation. But it does not weaken the breeding ground. For this, a much more challenging approach is needed, which accepts Rogan and Spotify for what they ultimately are, nihilist capitalists driven by greed, and focuses primarily on their potential audiences instead.
Cas Mudde is a Guardian US columnist and the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor in the school of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia
Francine Prose: ‘Don’t silence Rogan. Do this instead’
I admire the musicians who have withdrawn their music from Spotify in protest over the spread of Covid misinformation on Joe Rogan’s podcast. But I myself believe that free speech is indivisible. Rogan should stay on Spotify, though with his $100m salary sensibly brought in line with that of, let’s say, an NPR intern. Spotify shouldn’t silence Rogan. First he goes, then someone else’s podcast seems … sketchy, and there’s that slippery slope.
So here’s how it might be handled. Before Rogan’s podcast, there should be an announcement, not by Rogan himself, but by the painfully loud, electronic bear-horn voice that interrupts our regular broadcasts with hurricane warnings and Amber alerts.
The electronic voice should say: “What you are about to hear about Covid and the vaccine is total and absolute bullshit. If you believe these lies and act on them, you are gambling with your life and the lives of all the people you love.”
This warning should be repeated, word for word, every five minutes during the Rogan podcast. If Joe Rogan objects, he can leave Spotify and take his show elsewhere. But if he agrees to remain, the solution (and the publicity it generates) would turn the Rogan podcast from a bad thing into a good one and maybe save a few lives.
Francine Prose is the author, most recently, of The Vixen. She was also the president of PEN America
Bhaskar Sunkara: ‘This is an attempt to censor Joe Rogan’
Yes, people are trying to censor Joe Rogan. I know many in liberal circles would counter that only the state can censor, therefore attempting to get Spotify to “deplatform” America’s most polarizing podcaster can’t be anything of the sort. “Don’t you know that Rogan is a millionaire with many ways to reach his legions of supporters with his scientifically dubious views and guests?” they say.
We’ve seen enough examples throughout history of censorship not involving the state. Think about the protests of Universal Studio after The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988, or the more dramatic book burnings and boycotts of the 20th century.
The question, then, is whether censorship is ever justified. I think it can be. Actions undertaken by Lincoln’s government to censor the press and mail were part of winning a civil war that ended with republican liberty expanded, not destroyed. Actions taken by leftwing groups to deny Nazis platform in the media or in academia can sometimes work too (at other times, it might be better to deny the attention that being censored often affords the censored).
But is anyone seriously arguing that the stakes of the Rogan affair rises to this level? Or that pushing Rogan off Spotify will slow down the spread of vaccine skepticism and make a material difference in the wellbeing of ordinary Americans?
What’s indisputable is that the debate contributes to the further cementing of American politics as a spectacle of culture war without the possibility of shared, mass politics around common issues. Time spent demanding that Spotify do something about Joe Rogan is time we’re not spending demanding the US state guarantee things like universal healthcare. And that’s the surest route I know to defeat not only vaccine hesitancy, but the broader conspiratorial drift of US politics.
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin magazine and a Guardian US columnist. He is the author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality
Imran Ahmed: ‘Repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’
In a pandemic, misinformation’s pernicious effect is to offer false hope to the anxious; to dissuade people from following guidance from public health professionals; and to make people hesitate before taking a vaccine that has saved millions of lives worldwide.
Right now, as you read this, there are people gasping for breath in ICUs because they heard misinformation online or heard it in a podcast like Rogan’s, broadcast to millions.
If I ran Spotify, I’d be worried. Sure, legally, thanks to quirks in US law (a 25-year-old provision called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996) they cannot be held liable for the content they host. But what about the rest of us? Can we hold them liable for the fact they continue to happily profit from his show? Worse still, that they paid him a ton of money so that he would bring his enormous audience to their company. Can other artists? Listeners? Shareholders? Activists? Well, yes we can, we should, and we have.
This story is a synecdoche of big tech’s arrogance, indifference and greed over the past decade. They are the custodians of the most powerful communication technology in history. But their business model is a short-termist grab for cash that, ironically, destroys their long-term brand value. We should do everything we can in society to force reform. And Congress should repeal section 230, so people can sue if companies have not acted reasonably in their duty of care to users harmed by big tech’s failure.
Imran Ahmed is Chief Executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate
Joshua Citarella: ‘This is a Band-Aid solution’
American institutions and media have long ago lost the public trust. Post-pandemic, state level incompetence and partisan opacity have driven vast numbers of people out onto the web in search of alternative narratives. Joe Rogan is a popular source of news and editorial opinion because, contrasted against an increasingly illegitimate mainstream, he appears as a curious and honest narrator in search of a hidden truth.
The last few years have seen a narrowing of political speech online. In some cases, such as post-vaccine immunity or the lab leak hypothesis, this has been to the detriment of the public discourse. Expert opinions may now be overturned. Why was this questioning not allowed before?
The slow enclosure of online political speech is being offered as a Band-Aid solution for the much more difficult but necessary task of earning the public’s faith in their state and media. Until we are able to address the problem further upstream, it seems to me that we are watching the slow erosion of liberal freedoms without anything being offered in return.
Joshua Citarella is an artist and internet culture researcher based in New York City. He is the author of Politigram & the Post-left
