I think this is correct response. Anything else is start of slippery slope. First okay removing pod-cast. But what next some other big name demands removing some other artist, maybe upcoming competitor? Should they acquiesce to that too? Where would it end? A trust of well-connected artists dictating who can be with them on the same platform?
I think the crux of the issue is not that Spotify carries Rogan's podcast like they do 1000s others. It's that Spotify is paying mountains of $ to Rogan for exclusivity.
Spotify is not a passive party in this, they are actively promoting and contributing money to the generation and promotion of extremely dubious content on their platform.
I wouldn't mind so much if they were just carrying that particular podcast amongst a sea of others, I do question Spotify's ethics as a company that's made a conscious choice to finance misinformation.
Probably nothing more than a difference of opinion, but I'm not keen on supporting a company that cannot be considered neutral any more.
It's not that they are financing it, it makes them tons of money. It's a lot like Fox news hosts railing against mask and vaccine mandates, yet everyone in the building is vaccinated and wearing masks. It's a grift and makes a lot of money on people looking to be outraged or go against 'the man'.
It ends with you becoming Google/Facebook, trying and failing to police everything people say, and all sides hating you. The company is wise to avoid publicly positioning itself as the arbiter of content for as long as it can.
