Joe Rogan and Spotify’s Big Misinfo Problem

Rogan and his guests have amplified lives about transpokes, women, climate change. The list goes on, but right now his misleading and incorrect statements about COVID are what's got him in the spotlight. Rogan brought on serial misinformer Robert Malone, who was already suspended from Twitter for spreading inaccurate information about COVID, to promote the quote Defeat the Mandate rally

in Washington, d C. Last month. Rogan discouraged young people getting vaccinated, which is especially troubling given the average age of his listenership as twenty four years old, and, according to data from Washington State, unvaccinated twelves to thirty four year old are five times more likely to be hospitalized

with COVID than those who are fully vaccinated. Now, hundreds of doctors and public health professionals have published an open letter to Spotify, who exclusively publishes Joe Rogan's podcast, calling the streaming company out for the way the podcast they produce has spread COVID misinformation, and asking Spotify to establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform. India are Roxanne Gage, Joni Mitchell, and others have joined

Neil Young in taking their content off Spotify. In response, Spotify released a pretty weak clarification of their misinformation moderation policy, which doesn't really do much to address the kind of misinformation that Rogan spreads on his podcast. In a statement, Spotify CEO said, it is important to me that we don't take on the position of being a content sensor, also making sure that there are rules in place and

consequent is for those who violate them. Now, in that statement, Spotify makes it sound like Rogan it's just another podcaster on their platform, but he's not. Spotify exclusively produces rogan show and pays him of reported a hundred million dollars a year to do so. So what happens when someone has paid a hundred million dollars to spread conspiracy theories, misinformation, bigotry, and lies. My name is Abby Richards and I'm a

misinformation researchers slash tick talker. Abby Richards is a disinformation researcher, science communicator, and a friend of the show, and she says that Spotify's misinformation policy leaves a lot to be desired. So, Abby, I'm so glad that you were able to join me today. Um, I have gone kind of a while without talking about Joe Rogan, and I think it's time to talk about

Joe Rogan. It's time. It's time. Well, first of all, just as someone who is a misinformation researcher, what are your thoughts on his show, what he does, like, what are your initial thoughts? You know, I don't love it. I'm not like, I'm not a j R. E bro Uh. I have just witnessed like way too much misinformation and general kind of bigotry and hatred on that platform to then go ahead and be like, oh, I just love

how he interviews people so personally. Yeah, I'm not I'm not a huge fan are you no, It's so funny. A few months ago, before this UM Spotify issue was really in the news, I was at a hotel bar with my producer Mike, and we were I don't remember where we were coming back from, but we were getting a drink and there was this very obnoxious guy at the bar, like drunk, loud, obnoxious, and he was trying to really engage us in conversation and we were sort

of not having it. And I think for some reason, we were talking about Burning Man, Mike and I and this guy was like, oh, hey, I have a buddy who goes to Burning Man with with Joe Rogan every year.

And we looked at each other and Mike just went, so, why would you tell us this had no idea that we also have a podcast basically, which I feel like it is a little bit of like an anti Joe Rogan, like a podcast where we talk about the dangers of things like misinformation, conspiracy theories, extremism, Like he could not have picked a worse a worst way to try to

impress us. Oh yeah, I mean your podcast is literally there are no girls on the Internet, and Joe Rogan is literally we have no girls on the show yes exactly exactly. So, you know, what did you think about seeing all of these high profile folks from Neil Young, India, ari Um now Rock Sandgate removing their content from Spotify in reaction to their you know, really unwillingness to do anything about the misinformation that he spread so often. Yeah, I mean I think it's I think it's great. I

think it's been surprisingly powerful. I wasn't necessarily expecting it to have as big of like a ripple in the in the water as it did. What were your thoughts on there? I'm not even gonna say that they renewed like it just seemed like they were saying, like, oh, we do have a covidness information policy, but it wasn't for me. I didn't really feel like it was the kind of policy that you would expect a platform of that size to be putting out, you know, in now

the what second year of a pandemic. Yeah, you would expect it to be a little bit more coherent and thought through. And and the fact that it took all of this pressure to get the tiniest bit of transparency into the existing policy that they had is uh. It says quite a bit about how reluctant. These platforms are

to be transparent about their policies. Uh. And then so really what they did is they published their existing policies, which I'm going to also say, like, weren't they were quite lenient, um to the point where it seems as though you're able to say that like the back scenes caused death, but just as long as you don't say that they were designed to do so. And you know, they don't really cover wearing masks, and uh, they don't cover a large large range of medical misinformation that Joe

Rogan has spread on his show. Great to see the transparency, but I would like to see more coherent and thought out policies. And then in addition to that, they just like said they were going to put content warnings on misinformation, which isn't really shown to be effective. Like I don't consider that, uh a solid strategy to colm that misinformation,

especially not when you're literally funding the misinformation yourself. Again, it seems to illustrate to me that Spotify is kind of hoping that folks won't ask too many questions about their the nature of the relationship they have with Joe Rogan, because I feel like it's one thing to put content. It's one thing for Twitter to put a content warning on a user's tweet, right to say like, oh, well this so you know this tweet contains an accurate information.

It's another thing for Spotify to invite Joe Rogan to exclusively make content with them, pay him handsomely for that content, be the only place where you can find that content, and then kind of pretend like, oh, we can just put a content warning on it. That's the that's the as far as we can go in terms of dealing with it. Like that seems like the bare minimum, to

the point where it's almost meaningless. It's almost nothing, And you know, I do think that they're kind of hoping that people won't ask too many questions so that they can continue to treat Joe Rogan like any other individual content creator that they have on their platform, as opposed to what they actually are, which is like his publisher.

I think, Yeah, did you see the leaked speech UM published a few hours ago where the CEO went into a whole spiel about whether or not they are a publisher or a platform, And it's like, I mean, even as if you were just a platform, you still should have some responsibility for what is on your platform, but you also are specifically funding, like sponsoring this particular content on your platform, So you might not have editorial control,

but you still have some liability there. I think that the statement they released was very much like an attempt to make the problem go away, just really hoping that this in action looked enough like action that everybody would wave their hands and be like, oh, that's fine. I guess I have seen a lot of toothless tech double speak in my day that really means nothing. That was really that was like the Mona Lisa of toothless tech meaningless double speak. Pr right, Like, let's say a bunch

of things. Let's let's sort of say like we're listening, we hear you definitely make a nod to free speech, say like make a nod de fact that you're not gonna cave to other people's voices. It really hit all the marks, and I do I agree with you. I think that they're kind of hoping that this problem will sort of go away on its own, or that, like Joe Rogan put out that video statement, they put out a statement. I think that they're hoping that that's going

to be enough. Um, you know, the Rock has chimed in and said, like perfectly put, like, let's time to do on your show soon, Joe Rogan. Um. And I think it's just I think for me, it's really depressing because I believe that Spotify is re establishing a precedent, and that precedent is that if you are like, there is a market for lies, Like if you tell lies and spread misinformation and extremism, there is a market for that.

And so I think the question we need to ask ourselves it's like, are we comfortable with our media our media landscape really handsome, rewarding and amplifying lies for profit. And I think it's it's done so much to make

our our media is so much more toxic. Absolutely, And you think about how Joe Rogan really promotes controversial figures, and of course he claims he doesn't intend to do that, but like controversy brings in eyes and ears, and like it's quite clear that Rogan has a history of platforming people who promote misinformation, promote bigotry, climate change denial, a

lot of transphobia, like so much transphobia. Uh, it's and it's not just like allowed, it's being paid for like for exclusivity, like Spotify was like, we want this and we want you to be special so that you attract more users to our platform. Like they he serves a role there to bring more users to them and make money for them, and they are fundamentally profiting off of that kind of controversy. And I'm very frustrated. It is frustrating,

And you know, you you brought brought up a good point. Obviously, the conversation that's really been in the news right now is COVID asum COVID misinformation. But I guess my question is, I have listened to a lot of Joe Rogan show. I know that the transphobia is is so alarming, Like the amount of lies about trans people that that him

and his guest trafficking is pretty appolloged. Uh, the climate denialism, you know, he he did apologize for this, but when he said that leftists were the ones setting wildfires out in the west, right right, like things like this, I guess my question is, why do you think that it's the COVID misinformation specifically that really sticks when we talk

about this issue. But the lies that he tells about trans people, the lies that he tells about climate don't seem to stick quite as much because, in my perspective, those those things are also medical misinformation and public health misinformation. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of systemic inequality behind it. I think it's I'm happy to see that we are having this public conversation about his medical misinformation

on the platform. UM, But it is fundamentally really limited to COVID, And it does seem like people are more motivated by the pandemic than necessarily racial racial issues or trans issues, UM. And I think that speaks to the what the public fundamentally cares about. And I hate that we are up against so much when it comes to inequality that we really have to when when it comes to an issue that pertains to marginalize people, we really have to shout for people to hear us. You really

have to scream for people to hear us. And I think that COVID. You know, I think it's easier for some folks to to to see a demonstrable untruth about COVID, like oh, young people shouldn't get vaccinated and say, oh, that's a problem. But not but see the way that Joe Rogan will tell a demonstrable untruth about trans people, like he has said that trans people do I experience real discrimination, they bring it on themselves. That's demonstrably untrue.

I think that there's something that makes it easier for folks to respond when it's about COVID, and it's just easier for it to go unchecked, unacknowledged, or for maybe people to say like, oh, that's just his opinion, or you know, I think that it's it's It shows how much further we have to go in terms of helping people understand that misinformation is often identity based, that's often racialized and gendered in this way, and it's it's really

really harmful, like real world harm, the same way that COVID health misinformation is yea, and I mean, and we think of how a lot of this criticism started was with like doctors and scientists and science educators who already had existing platforms and are already you know, exist within this realm of privilege and having their voices elevated, which

is great. I'm happy to have doctors and scientists voices elevated, but I do think it speaks to just how their voices are treated as you know, more worthy of attention than necessarily uh, large groups of marginalized people who have been speaking out against Joe Rogan for ages. Now, oh that's such a good point. Let's a quick break out

our back feminists, black women, queer folks, trans folks. They have been saying for the longest time, and also me personally as a podcaster, I've been saying like this, Joe Rogan's like his stick is harmful, and I feel like people didn't listen and it's Taylor's oldest time, like folks don't listen until it's kind of everyone's problem. That is

something that we talk about extensively on this show. Um. But I also think there's this idea that I think that Joe Rogan really perpetuates that he's just asking questions or you know, he says like, oh, I'm not a doctor, don't take my advice, or you know, my guest says this, and I don't know enough to push back, and as someone who makes a podcast, I know that that's not true. Right, Like I'm not an expert on a lot of things,

but I decide who comes onto my show. I decide, you know, who to platform, and it's just it's just this kind of feigning of ignorance that I feel is

so powerful but so frustrating. Yeah. I go back and forth on whether it's famed or whether he just really is like that much of just an idiot who has just fallen upwards and upwards and upwards into having podcasts where for some reason people listen to him talk for three hours And it's like, I can't really tell um because it's such a perfect excuse to be like, well, I didn't know, you know, how was I going to know that when I had this guest on that I

booked and supposedly should have researched what kinds of things they were going to say before platforming them, and you know, maybe listen to the edit of my podcast before I posted it. Uh, all of those very basic things that I do for my TikTok's I would expect him to do for his world's largest podcast, But apparently it hasn't occurred to him that he has any any responsibility. Yes, you just put that so wonderfully. I think that's one

of the reasons. I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm just crapping on another podcaster, but it's it's something. It's very frustrating to watch. And I know that so many people who make content, whether it's TikTok's like you or podcasts like me, they put so much effort and craft and care into it, and so hearing like, well, I don't even listen to them. I don't even prepare. I don't know what I'm gonna say before until I say it's like, wow, we really are having different experiences

when it comes to creating or content. Something fundamentally different is happening here. A part of the reason why I almost by his act of just like really being that ignorant is I think that like he is somebody who just would never have ever been affected by this sort of misinformation and hate it that he allows on his platform, and therefore he doesn't have any understanding of why he

needs to have responsibility like I could. I could maybe understand if he really smokes as much weak as he does seem to like, how he could end up in that position of just like I don't know, I just like listen, I just listen to other people talk and post it. But like, you have a responsibility, and if you don't, if you refuse to take that responsibility seriously, then like why do you deserve to have the platform

that you do? That's such a good question, and and platforms they they do come like even if you have a small platform, it comes with responsibility. And I think that's something I've been so frustrated about. In this conversation, um, I was doing like a news interview about Joe Rogan and Spotify, and it was a little bit of an adversarial like the interviewer definitely was more team Rogan than I was, and he kept asking like, isn't this censorship,

Like isn't this cancel culture? And I kind of couldn't get my head around how we got to a place where asking for someone that has a massive platform that has listened to by millions of people, that has paid hundreds a hundred million dollars to make to make something, asking for really basic fact checking or basic you know, editorial standards is equated to censorship, Like I don't know if you read Rock sand Gay's amazing piece in The New York Times today about why she's pulling her podcast

from Spotify, she said, there's a difference between censorship and curation. When we are not free to express ourselves, we can be thrown in jail or even lose our lives speaking for speaking freely. That is censorship. When we say as a society that bigotry and misinformation are unacceptable, that people who spouse these ideas don't deserve access to significant platforms, that's curation. We are expressing our caste and moral discernment and saying what we find acceptable and what we do not.

And I feel like we've kind of lost the thread in a way that really benefits who spread misinformation. That the second that you're like, wait, well we should doesn't we should expect better than lies and bigotry and extremism. Immediately there's going to be acquire people who are like that censorship, that's canceled culture. That's bad. Yeah. I am so glad that you read that quote, because if you didn't, I would have. It was such a good piece, and

I really highly recommend that everybody co read it. Um. It's it's really interesting that this has it. It's really interesting, but not at all surprising that this has been turned into some effort to cancel Joe Rogan when that was never really what anyone has asked for. UM. First of all, define cancel. I can't, UM, But like we add like we were asking for misinformation policies and for those to be implemented and transparent on the platform. Um and like yes,

Joe Rogan's podcast should also follow those policies. I don't think anybody is saying like he should not be allowed to ever speak again, he should be thrown in prison, Like nobody's saying that, Like I don't think anyone even has a problem with his stupid getting high and having comedy podcasts like if I'm yeah, I'm also pro getting high, Like if you want to get high and talk to your dudes about wrestling, Joe, go ahead, Like I just

don't need you high. Speculating about the vaccines being gene therapy, like just just I'm not saying, don't have a career doing this. It seems like for some reason some people find you very entertaining, so go ahead. It's it's just the the lies and the hatred that I feel like we could avoid. I think Roxane as Piece put it really well that people people who are trafficking lies and hatred. I don't love it, but okay, I think those those people are always going to be there. They shouldn't be

the loudest voices in the room. They shouldn't be the most well paid voices in the room. They shouldn't be the most amplified voices in the room. And when they are, I feel like that's when we really have a problem because it just takes up so much oxygen from the room, Like we don't really have the space to have the substitutive, thoughtful conversations that we could be having when the person

with the loudest megaphone is just screaming nonsense. Yeah, and and like you're never gonna be able to make every

shitty opinion go away. Um, but that those shitty opinions don't necessarily like deserve giant platforms and to have access to like every year in the country, especially like for people who are vulnerable to those sorts of like sorts of biggest for you in misinformation if you are somebody who's vulnerable to that, and then you listen to Joe Rogan because maybe you really look up to him, like and then you're fed lies and racism and transphobia, Like

he's that that's predatory more after a quick break, let's get right back into it. We can't deny that he people like him he's very popular. He has a huge audience, and I think part of the reason why that is it's sort of the same old story when it comes to misinformation. I think that bad actors and people who traffic and misinformation they find groups of people who feel

who are or feel overlooked or or underserved. And so whether it's a Banish speaking population that doesn't have enough Spanish speaking news outlets, and so bad actors know like, oh, we will give you lots of news, it will just be lies. I think that Joe Rogan maybe really taps into a group of younger males who do feel legitimately unseen and unlistened to and like no one is speaking

to them. And so I think that he has been able to shine a spotlight on these folks and make them feel seen and heard and validated in ways maybe other media sources, like legitimately maybe are not And so I wonder, like, like, what do you think about that, Like why do you think he has such a big listenership, Why do you think he's so popular, and what does

it say about our media climate. I definitely agree that he must be serving some like he's serving and meeting some emotional and psychological need for this largely male audience who listened to him. Um. I think that from when I've listened to podcast, there does seem to be this kind of this focus on masculinity, either implicity, implicitly or explicitly. Masculinity is often uh highlighted. There's a lot of gender anxiety.

I think that when SIS men are confronted with the reality that gender isn't as binary as they were told it was, that there can be a lot of backlash and that they will just kind of try and root even deeper into the gender binary and for quote traditional masculinity. So I see that a lot in his podcast, and I do think that he's meeting that need right Like he's just he's just like your funny older brother who's

like getting high and having chats with other funny guys. Um, So he's got to be meeting their needs in that way. We had an interview with Foma Zoma, who used to reprep Interest and a instrumental person in terms of getting

Pinterest to ban medical misinformation. Something that you told me that really stuck with me is that nine times out of ten people who were pushing medical misinformation on Pinterest we're selling something, whether it was a supplement or something some sort of like alternative something, and they were like making money. And so I know that Joe Rogan owns a supplement company, and his supplement company advertises on the podcast. When you go to the Joe Rogan Reddit, people are

asking a lot about it. I feel like it is obviously in his best interest to have a generation of young men feel intense anxiety about what it means to be a man masculinity, and then also sell supplements that purport to make you more virile, make you more masculine, make you more of a man, whatever that means. I think it's a very clear, really it's a very clear relationship to me why someone would be interested in having their listenership feel anxious about the sort of gender issues

you were just speaking to. And it always bumps me out because I always just wonder what if that same generation of young men were had access to a platform that was as popular, as accessible as I guess, engaging as they find Joe Rogan, but instead of leaning into lies and anxieties around gender, they were being given thoughtful, substitutive, interesting, you know, opinions and takes about gender. That did that?

Did we're not also trafficking and lies and extremism? What if that was what they were being said with, would they feel the need to buy to buy supplements? What they feel the like? Would they feel as anxious? Would that?

Would that nourish them more? Right? Like I I guess when I think about this information, I think about the massive sort of missed opportunity to really nourish people with good content and good media, because I truly believe that everybody deserves good media, everybody deserves the truth, everybody deserves accuracy. And it makes me sad that so many people they

choose something else. Yeah, not only are they and they don't choose it like they not only are they choosing it, but it's being really promoted to them and fed to them. As you know, this is the most popular, so it

must be good. And I think so much disinformation. I mean, as you said, like they're they're selling something, And a big tactic of encouraging people to buy something is to make them feel as though they are they need it, right, like they are wanting they are lacking something, And one way to do that is make them feel anxious, Right, they're lacking masculinity. Uh, they don't have enough vitamin whatever

they're they're selling on that particular episode. Um. And they we see it with like Fox News right, like they prey on vulnerable populations, highlight these deep anxieties that they have, and then feed them disinformation just to like increase those anxieties. It doesn't help for our polarization problem at all either, Like it's an absolute mess, but people profit off of it. Yeah, I think that's something that really gets to me that

it absolutely adds to polarization. And we have so many big issues facing us as people as a society, and if we're all being fed extremism and lies and pull and like more and more polarized and people are profiting off of that, we're never going to be able to come together with like a subsidutive conversation about these issues. We're always going to remain polarized. And I, you know, I believe that we are better when we are coming to the table with accurate information to have to base

our conversations on. And it makes like there are people out there that are profiting on us not doing that absolutely well, because the whole idea is to uphold the status quo and they're profiting off of people being unhappy in the status quo or you know, not understanding why they don't have the wealth that they were promised they one day would, or the power or happiness that they

were promised that they one day would. Um. And none of this media empowers anybody in their lives, Like fundamentally, it's there to increase anxiety and to keep them powerless in the face of tremendous inequality, Like this is not helping to unite the lower class. What Yeah, I love how you put that. It is not it's media that is not empowering. And yeah, I feel like everybody deserves to see themselves reflected in media. Everybody deserves to feel

empowered by media. And I guess I just that's like a fundamental belief. And I hate, like it even pains me to be having this conversation abou Joe Rogan, because I know there are men that make better content that will never get a tenth of the attention that somebody like Joe Rogan would get, would never get a tenth of the funding like somebody like Joe Rogan would get, And yeah, they just continue to take up the resources

and the oxygen in the room. I literally hate, Like, I am really happy that this conversation is being had and that we are finally kind of like holding Spotify accountable, but at the same time, it's drowning out other conversations. I mean, even on Spotify they were talking about how internally employees are unhappy because they weren't able to actually

promote Black History Month podcasts that they had planned. So in a lot of ways, even in his scandals and criticism, Joe Rogan is drowning out other voices, and that is also very frustrating. It's so frustrating. How do you how do you see this? Like where do you think we go from here? I'm constantly trying to make the point that this is not about anyone creator or just about Spotify. These issues are really systemic and institutional and they go so deep, like like, like, where do you see this

going from here? We're at this moment we're having this like national conversation about lies for profit and misinformation. Um, where do you see it going? Or where do you

hope it goes? Yeah, those are two different questions. I really really hope that this can somehow be a lesson to platforms that they should not be sponsoring people who spread lies and hatred, Like fundamentally, that seems like a pretty simple takeaway message is like just don't financially reward them, don't facilitate their own growth by literally giving them millions and millions of dollars to be controversial and cause you know,

uproar from lives like that's not helpful. And I really hope that you know, this dissuades companies from directly sponsoring it at a bare minimum, and then going forward, I'd like to see platforms also, you know, because platforms also a profit off of this, like YouTube seale profits off of Joe Rogan's videos, um, and I'd like to see platforms also doing more too, you know, limit their reach and limit their ability to grow an entire platform and

make millions of dollars by using this like old and timeless formula. Yeah, I'm with you. I think that will never change until we make trafficking in lies unprofitable, trafficking in extremism unprofitable, like and I'm not even someone with I don't you said earlier that there's always gonna be people be people who have shitty opinions. I agree, but we don't have to give the microphones and a million

dollar check to have those opinions. Now, absolutely not. I think that that's really that's much more assistination than what I said. Yeah, trafficking in lives should not be profitable. Like I don't know why this is somehow a radical take. Yeah, like how bad? Like we're pretty down bad. When it's like, oh, that like trafficking and lie shouldn't be unprofitable, you cancel culture sensor sensor censoring. Yeah, it's it's bad. I am just a radical lib because I don't think you should

get to make money for being racist. Okay, I have one more question for you. I know that you are a prolific TikToker. Have you seen this trend where women use the TikTok face filter to add a beard onto their face and then they pretend to be male podcasts? Yes, I love it. You are a man of high value. It's so funny. I love it. I feel like it cuts across race, like we I mean, I think that honestly, part of the conversation is I think that a lot of a lot of us are just like sick of men,

like sick of men's voices. On podcasts, like you know, it's I think the tide is turning. Yeah, I was really relieved to see that because I'm just happy to see some criticism of the way that men hold space in podcasts. Uh even like, even if it's in the form of statire, I think that's still super valid criticism because it's just so obnoxious. Girl that that that would be a whole well off into a part two, because that would be a whole other time. I could, I could,

I could talk for hours. I can talk for hours. I will just say I agree, stop letting men a podcast, stop having letting men have podcast challenge. Just we're asking for one year of no male podcast. That's it. I'm here for it. I'm here for it. Abby. Thank you so much as always for helping to shed light on these issues. Where can folks keep up with your amazing work?

Uh yeah, thank you so much for having me and they can as always sign me on TikTok at topology or on Twitter at Abbey a s R or Instagram at Abbey s R. I really need to get all of the same user name, but Ward, just it's on my tode this I promise. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi. You can be just at Hello at tangodi dot com. You can also find transcripts today's episode at tangdi dot com. There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by

me Brigita. It's a production of iHeart Radio and Unboss creative Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer, Terry Harrison as our producer, and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeart Radio, check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.