Spotify & J*e R*gan V. Neil Young
After about an hour reading through this dumpster fire of a topic, I could not help but laugh. Spotify is receiving backlash for removing Neil Young’s music (as well as Joni Mitchell’s) after he gave an ultimatum: “It’s either me, or the problematic person who has the №1 podcast on your platform who you have also paid $100 million to”. Spotify had no problem removing Young’s music from the platform almost immediately.
J*e R*gan is an incredibly problematic human being who spreads misinformation and gives confidence to incels through his podcast. Yes, he utilizes his freedom of speech, has some credible guests — but is it really good advice? Absolutely not. I think any one who has read a book will agree. To combat this misinformation, Spotify’s Daniel EK released Spotify’s Platform Rules and Approach to COVID-19. Spotify also removed 25,000 episodes containing misinformation about COVID-19 (excluding Rogan’s episode with Dr. Malone, the episode in question that spreads misinformation about COVID-19 and its vaccine).
On the other side of this argument, we have Neil Young. Young misunderstood what underwhelming response he produced relative to his original intent. Spotify’s demographics reveal that this may not have been the most ideal move to make, considering 55% of Spotify’s users are 34 and under.
Young’s name in headlines has social media users saying, “Who is Neil Young?” He has made music since the 1960s that highlight oppression and other social justice issues. Songs such as “Southern Man” and “Indian Givers” were written about the oppression of BIPOC in the United States. However, like Rogan, this is how Young makes his money. Profiting off of music about the oppression of BIPOC does not help the oppression of BIPOC.
J*e R*gan is problematic, but he uses his platform. He created his platform. His listeners are loyal to him because he is consistently producing content for them to consume and connect with. He has 200 million listeners monthly, while Young roughly has (had) 6.1 million. The numbers were in Rogan’s favor.
Asking a platform to remove your music isn’t the activism that you may think it is, especially a platform who’s users were mostly born in the late 80’s through the 90’s. Young’s action raised a different point that pertains to musicians rights and their control within the business — that is where his actions are beneficial. Using this action as a tool in the free market to no longer connect with Spotify (or other businesses) gave other musicians the motivation to do the same. This effort, however, doesn’t pertain to the original intent, and he missed the mark.
Overall, this seems like a battle that was blown out of proportion. It was another act that received too much attention for such little, beneficial results. If more artists pull out of streaming their music on Spotify, there may be a bigger impact towards the removal of Rogan’s podcast.
Spotify responded in the most neutral way they could: by keeping their beloved $100 million baby and removing a man who had asked for it, but providing new regulations to content published.
