Rogan's Mouth Still Costing Spotify.

Graham Nash removed his content from Spotify today, along with India Arie. The latter doing so over Rogan's comments about what 'real' black people are, and aren't.

Whereas this is just the start of a movement that won't end anytime soon, especially given Rogan's claim today about Ivermectin having been proven effective against Omicron in phase 3 clinical trials, ( a lie that the stoner misquoted from an article citing the opposite) this action is one of the more interesting:

Now THAT'S a kick in the dick.

Yep. The Fascists on the left hate anyone who doesn't goose step march to their lie filled talking points and agenda. Seig Hiel! :palm:
 
No he isn't.

He dresses it up in "I'm just asking questions"...but the questions he's asking are ones that have already been answered...he just didn't like the answer so he keeps asking the question until he gets the answer he wants.

It's the opposite of intellectualism and modesty. It's hubris, really.

Tim Heidecker (comedy genius) has the best takes on Rogan.


 
I don't know what to say to this.

I really don't.

I haven't been talking profit at all, you keep trying to steer the conversation in that direction.
When you say the company lost $4B dollars you are talking profit since the only way a company can lose money is in the profit/loss column of their financials. If you are talking about stock price then you must clarify it by saying valuation otherwise you are just showing your ignorance.
 
Yes we can because those losses Apple saw happened when the market went down earlier and before the Rogan stuff.

Spotify's loss of $2B in value in the last 8 days is 100% because of Rogan...the market was down as a whole for most of January, but then went back up the last week of the month, with the market rebounding...well, not the whole market because while the market was rebounding at the end of January, Rogan decided to make an ass of himself and Spotify.




The CEO's compensation is most definitely tied to stock performance. Ek doesn't take a salary at Spotify, he gets paid in stock. He is eligible for bonuses based on sub growth and owns 9.2% of the shares in the company: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/spotify-daniel-ek-net-worth-14543259

Nothing there about getting Ek paid in stock.
Ek doesn't receive a base salary, according to the SEC document, but he is eligible for $1 million annual bonuses based on the growth of subscribers and active users.

Ek owns a lot of shares because he started the company and retained those shares when the company went public. It's the same thing Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and a lot of other people did when they started companies and took them public.

So then the rebound in Spotify stock is because Neil Young and Joni Mitchell left it? Assigning a single reason for stock fluctuations is idiotic.
 
a-jpg.919181
 
liberal logic:


mobilizing to get books taken out of elementary schools - bad censorship

mobilizing to remove podcasts from cloud providers that adults listen to - good censorship
 
ROGAN AVERAGES 11 million viewers/followers....



ALL THE HAS BEEN ROCKSTARS HAVE ABOUT 100///BETWEEN THEM.
 
yawn

the intent is the same

people think they are smart, and others are dumb, and need to protect dumb people from themselves

Ironically, it is sometimes true with kids. - not in that book of course - and when it is true for adults, - I call it darwinism - and it is unproductive to intervene anyway
 
Nothing there about getting Ek paid in stock.

Ummm...that's because it is all about Ek getting paid in stock:

According to Spotify's SEC registration document, Ek owns 9.2% of the company, excluding warrants and options, while Lorentzon owns 12.25%. Together they control 80% of the voting shares of the company, however.



Ek owns a lot of shares because he started the company

OK, but his compensation is in company stock because of that.

He is bonus eligible, but does not get a salary.


It's the same thing Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and a lot of other people did when they started companies and took them public.

And in lieu of getting a salary, they have shares of the company.

So...what is inaccurate about what I said?
 
When you say the company lost $4B dollars you are talking profit

No I'm not...I never said profit. I can't help it if your mind automatically goes there...that's on you.

I said the company lost $4B, WHICH IT DID because of Rogan and only Rogan.

And it didn't even fully recoup those losses...it's still $2B in the hole with a damaged brand.


If you are talking about stock price then you must clarify it by saying valuation otherwise you are just showing your ignorance.

Hey chill out...if specificity is what you need, then that's fine. But this passive-aggressive shit ain't helpful to anyone.
 
No, this is just censorship because it's state action to ban books.
that is one form, yes -


No, that is the free market.

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups."

so, yeah, it is censorship. the point of his activism is an attempt to suppress the material so others can't see it
 
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups."

Deplatforming Joe Rogan from Spotify isn't censorship because Joe Rogan can just go on YouTube or start his own streaming platform.

He just chooses not to do that because he gets $300M from Spotify, but he can quit Spotify at any time and start his own streaming platform.
 
Deplatforming Joe Rogan from Spotify isn't censorship because Joe Rogan can just go on YouTube or start his own streaming platform.

He just chooses not to do that because he gets $300M from Spotify, but he can quit Spotify at any time and start his own streaming platform.

that still suppresses his audience.

you are confused as usual. this is not a free speech violation, but it is censorship by the literal definition
 
so, yeah, it is censorship. the point of his activism is an attempt to suppress the material so others can't see it

Because his "material" is misinformation.

It's not censorship to kick him off Spotify because he can start his own streaming platform at any time he wants.
 
Because his "material" is misinformation.

It's not censorship to kick him off Spotify because he can start his own streaming platform at any time he wants.

it's not censorship - because we only burned the book in one library. you can go to another library down the road to get it

burning books to suppress reading it is censorship -it does not matter if the author can get his book into another store - the one place censored him
 
Back
Top