I think this is an appropriate way to deal with any ultimatum. It's a much weaker form of "don't negotiate with terrorists". It's in no organizations to embolden people into bullying them into something. I wish we saw more of this.
(As a hedge, most times when I see something principled like this happen, there is some small blowback and instead of letting it pass, the organization capitulates and reverses their decision. We'll see if that happens here)
I agree that it's the right move. It's Spotify telling artists and content creators that it won't be a part of either their political statements or grudges. Imagine a streaming platform where Eminem tells the platform to remove Machine Gun Kelly or else he's removing his content. And once one person pulls it off, a lot of people will try to do the same.
> It's Spotify telling artists and content creators that it won't be a part of either their political statements or grudges.
I realize I'm pulling a quote out of context from your comment, itself a specific reply to another comment. That being said:
This doesn't seem to address what I understand to be the issue. I would draw a distinction between political statements based on differences of opinion/perspective and statements that target misinformation. If one believes that the latter is at play, this distinction is relevant, and the idea is somewhat codified (with some variations) in the free speech, hate speech, and libel laws of many jurisdictions for reasons that seem justifiable to me.
More specifically, I would have a problem with Spotify engaging in specific political disputes between artists on their platform. I wouldn't have a problem with Spotify adapting their terms to target misinformation on their platform, assuming this was done in good faith and enforced reasonably.
No, a free market doesn’t require any statement of preferences, just freedom to buy and sell. Your wallet states your preferences in a free market, not your words.
Stating your preferences online is just practicing free speech.
The posturing in this argument is silly. The other person thinks joe Rogan is being irresponsible and should change. That’s not a violation of your freedom.
> So my options are switching between streaming platforms or having Rogan's podcast censored down to the guests you and Neil Young like?
Because you’re acting like these two “either or” options are being forced on you. The options are 1) misleading and 2) not your only options.
Option #1 - Switching streaming platforms - There are already artists far more popular than Young not on Spotify (https://www.ranker.com/list/musicians-against-spotify/ranker...), like Prince, the Beatles, Taylor Swift, Pink Floyd, etc. If you’ve ever wanted to listen to these all-time artists, you already had to switch platforms, so this is not a new option.
Option #2 - Censorship - Find me a quote where Young says he wants to curate Rogan’s content. You’re leading here. And censorship is way too strong a word. It’s not censorship if the content is (or can be) easily accessible elsewhere. Censorship is the total banning of a piece of content everywhere.
Totally fine to be upset by what Young did, I get that it’s a crappy move, but it doesn’t rise to the level of censorship or inconveniencing you, beyond the tiniest amount.
(As a hedge, most times when I see something principled like this happen, there is some small blowback and instead of letting it pass, the organization capitulates and reverses their decision. We'll see if that happens here)