Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbecker | Hacker News Reader

What if they were promoting a company that funds misleading nutrition research to fool people into thinking sugar is less harmful, leading to countless early deaths and diabetes?

What about a company that's the largest plastic polluter in the world, that also lobbies to kill regulation to reduce plastic pollution? It's hard to know the full extent of the harm microplastics cause the ecosystem, but it's unlikely to be small.

How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola? Or is that not worth the same level of condemnation as interviewing the wrong person?

View on HN

> How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola?

Sounds like you've identified the key difference on your own?

Spotify can be avoided. Groceries largely cannot.

(There's also a difference in revenue model. You can't subscribe to Spotify without part of that money going to Rogan. You can skip Coca-Cola products at the grocery store and ensure the companies you don't like see $0 from you.)

> You can't subscribe to Spotify without part of that money going to Rogan.

Can't you? Rogan's compensation isn't based on Spotify's total profits, and if you don't listen to him, you won't be contributing to his audience size either, and Spotify will be able to see that in their metrics. If tomorrow Spotify gains 100 million new users, that then never listen to a single Rogan episode, how would that increase Rogan's compensation?

Are you genuinely unable to see the difference between the two revenue models? I'm really not all that interested in absurd hypotheticals.

If I buy a Coke at my grocery store, Coke's getting some of that money. If I buy a Pepsi, Coke gets none of that. I can boycott specific companies while still buying groceries, and again, opting out of food is an issue.

If Rogan were an optional premium paid add-on channel on Spotify, the two would be far more comparable.

> If I buy a Coke at my grocery store, Coke's getting some of that money. If I buy a Pepsi, Coke gets none of that.

And if you subscribe to Spotify but don't listen to Rogan, Rogan also gets none of that. If you believe otherwise, please explain how.

> And if you subscribe to Spotify but don't listen to Rogan, Rogan also gets none of that. If you believe otherwise, please explain how.

Rogan's not being paid per stream like song artists are.

If I pay for Spotify, my $10/month revenue goes to pay their expenses. One of those expenses is Rogan's $100M contract.

The mere act of shopping at the grocery store doesn't send money to Coca-Cola. I have to specifically buy one of their products.

And if you shop at a grocery store, your money goes to pay their expenses. One of those expenses if stocking Coca-Cola. See how easy it is to make it seem like you contribute to something if you join all capital flows into one big pool?

You have to explain how Rogan would get more money if you subscribe to Spotify, than if you didn't subscribe.

How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola? Or is that not worth the same level of condemnation as interviewing the wrong person?

Everybody gets to choose what they are and are not willing to support with their money. Some things I am willing to compromise to avoid; other things I am not. Extremely strange to me how many of you want to perform these weird mental gymnastics to suggest that people should be ashamed of not handing their money over to people or causes they disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com