For 180 million listeners worldwide, the content platformed by Spotify has become a staple of morning commutes and evening walks. However, the streaming service has recently come under fire for the accuracy of its content in the form of a boycotting movement spearheaded by singer-songwriter Neil Young. On January 24th, Young published an open letter on his website advocating for the withdrawal of his music from Spotify, citing concerns with the platform’s continued clearance of COVID-19 misinformation. Young singled out Joe Rogan, comedian and host of The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) podcast carried by Spotify, as a perpetrator of misinformation. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” he proclaimed.
Young’s decision stemmed from an open letter written by public health professionals urging Spotify to “establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform.” Invoking JRE’s continued platforming of anti-vaccine ideology, such as Rogan’s hosting of prominent vaccine skeptic Dr. Robert Malone, the letter pointed to the dangers of Spotify permitting “mass-misinformation events.” Upon Young’s departure from Spotify, the letter drew swathes of public attention and the subsequent defection of other artists from Spotify, namely folk singer Joni Mitchell and rock musician Nils Lofgren.
While these departures have made the backlash against Rogan appear novel, Rogan is no stranger to controversy. Past guests on his podcast have ranged from alt-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to transphobic author Abigail Shrier; all given an outlet to express inaccurate claims such as the efficacy of masks against COVID-19. The podcaster has also come under fire for repeatedly using the N-word, an offense that prompted R&B singer India Arie to pull her content from Spotify. All in all, plenty of precedent exists for the contention surrounding Rogan.
As in the cases of other corporations embroiled in free speech controversies, like Facebook and Twitter, the license Spotify possesses to mediate the content that it houses is not cut-and-dry. Not only does the line between acceptable and harmful speech blur upon interrogation, but it is unclear whether corporations should wield the power to make such a distinction. Like Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says, “Canceling voices is a slippery slope.” However, Spotify has also complicated this ambiguity. In 2020, the company struck a deal worth roughly $100 million with Rogan for exclusive rights to JRE. While Spotify touts its commitment to free speech, the lucrative nature of Rogan’s podcast, which brings in over 11 million listeners per episode, undoubtedly slants its motivations. As long as Spotify monetarily supports Rogan and reaps the benefits, the platform cannot serve as an impartial protector of free speech and creative expression. Instead, its financial backing of Rogan implies a certain responsibility for his rhetoric.
Scrambling to mitigate the public outrage it has incited, Spotify has committed $100 million—the same sum as Rogan’s deal—to “music and audio content from historically marginalized groups.” This investment rings hollow; not only does it distribute an amount of money originally designated for one man to many artists, but considering Rogan’s history of racist comments, it also serves more as an admission of guilt than an acceptance of accountability. Aside from this half-hearted gesture, Spotify has made its content guidelines public and added content advisories to podcast episodes discussing COVID-19. However, the application of these guidelines remains murky. Despite Spotify’s claim that it has taken down over 20,000 COVID-19-related podcast episodes, the methodology the company used to weed out these episodes is unclear, and a crucial question persists: do Spotify’s policies regarding misinformation apply as inconsistently to small, less profitable creators as they do to big creators like Rogan?
Spotify’s refusal to meet calls for transparency in its decisions on content moderation only underscores the larger problem with the service: its prioritization of profit at the expense of the artists and audiences it built a name off of. This issue is most apparent in the long-standing qualms against the financial compensation Spotify and other streaming services provide to musical artists. When determining how royalties should be apportioned to artists, large streaming platforms such as Spotify utilize a pro-rata model, pooling and dividing monthly revenue between artists based on the percentage of total streams that their music receives. Under this model, artists can be paid as little as $0.003 per stream, and for many users, a portion of their money goes to artists they do not listen to, a payout system disproportionately favoring top-streamed artists. Not only is the pro-rata model unsustainable for smaller artists who lack alternative sources of income, but it is also detrimental to artistry. Musicians are presented with the dilemma of whether to churn out music in order to maximize streaming revenue versus taking time on their craft at the risk of losing financial stability.
As with the Rogan fiasco, the financial injustice committed by Spotify has drawn its own share of outrage. Organized by the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers in 2020, the campaign Justice at Spotify has demanded compensation for artists of at least one cent per stream and increased transparency regarding Spotify’s financial dealings. While Justice at Spotify and similar movements have garnered substantial press coverage, unlike the fresh pushback against Spotify, they have largely faded from the public consciousness. Even though artists such as Thom Yorke of Radiohead have spoken out against the platform’s inequitable pay structure, many of the artists currently boycotting Spotify remain silent regarding the issue.
This lack of support reeks of hypocrisy. While big artists like Young and Mitchell adopt firm stances against COVID-19 misinformation, they can afford to be silent on the financial injustice faced by smaller artists, who have been unevenly disadvantaged by the pandemic’s suppression of live events and thus are increasingly reliant on streaming income. Coupled with this ignorance is the irony underlying the publicity many artists boycotting Spotify have generated for other large streaming services. Take Neil Young, who directed his fans toward Amazon Music with his offer of a four-month free subscription. Young’s support of Amazon, a company notorious for providing unsafe working conditions during the pandemic, dilutes the sentiment behind his call for corporate responsibility.
The mere exchange of talent between large corporations exploiting their artists and workers underlies the current structural problem facing the music industry. The command of streaming by a handful of companies such as Spotify and Apple has backed artists into a corner, forcing them to choose between platforms equally unlikely to provide fair compensation for their work. This chokehold, unfairly affecting smaller artists, is only tightened by the domination of the music industry by the three powerhouse record labels: Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. Not only do these labels account for a majority of the music streamed on Spotify, but the artists they represent are favored for placement onto Spotify’s editorial playlists, further perpetuating the advantages enjoyed by top creators. Within this structure, small artists are left floundering in the sea of Big Music.
In an era of music conglomerates and favoritism of large artists, Spotify can get away with maintaining lucrative deals with the likes of Rogan while scamming less profitable creators. With the Spotify boycott, the time seems ripe for artists to hold Spotify accountable for its transgressions and capitalize on the negative publicity to build a broader movement. However, the focus of the press and the artists boycotting Spotify has largely remained on the offenses of Rogan. The muteness of Young, Mitchell, and other musicians on Spotify’s unjust pay structure reflects their ignorance of a critical opportunity to alter the inequities of the music industry.
Aside from generating structural change, there are multiple avenues for consumers with the means and desire to support fair compensation of artists to do so. An arguable step toward more just treatment of artists is the use of platforms such as Deezer and Tidal, which utilize a user-centric model, directing earnings from a user only toward the artists who that user listened to. While not a streaming service, Bandcamp is another alternative for music enthusiasts to easily buy physical and digital copies of music while connecting with their favorite independent artists. Inaction may paralyze corporations and entertainers, but consumers are still capable of waging their own war against the music industry’s exploitative practices.
Ultimately, the fight versus COVID-19 misinformation is a critical move toward pushing Spotify towards greater transparency regarding those they platform and fund. However, the pushback against Rogan is only a fraction of the battle — Spotify’s prioritization of profit over the artists it claims to value will not end without public pressure, whether Rogan is held accountable or not. Standing up against Spotify’s unfair treatment of its artists will take more than sporadic, short-lived thrashings in the news. To this end, the recent movement to boycott Spotify has passed up an opportunity to radically alter the unethical practices of the music industry. If top artists and the general public continue to avoid investment in the well-being of all artists and movements such as Justice at Spotify, such opportunities will continue to slip by.
For 180 million listeners worldwide, the content platformed by Spotify has become a staple of morning commutes and evening walks. However, the streaming service has recently come under fire for the accuracy of its content in the form of a boycotting movement spearheaded by singer-songwriter Neil Young. On January 24th, Young published an open letter on his website advocating for the withdrawal of his music from Spotify, citing concerns with the platform’s continued clearance of COVID-19 misinformation. Young singled out Joe Rogan, comedian and host of The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) podcast carried by Spotify, as a perpetrator of misinformation. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” he proclaimed.
Young’s decision stemmed from an open letter written by public health professionals urging Spotify to “establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform.” Invoking JRE’s continued platforming of anti-vaccine ideology, such as Rogan’s hosting of prominent vaccine skeptic Dr. Robert Malone, the letter pointed to the dangers of Spotify permitting “mass-misinformation events.” Upon Young’s departure from Spotify, the letter drew swathes of public attention and the subsequent defection of other artists from Spotify, namely folk singer Joni Mitchell and rock musician Nils Lofgren.
While these departures have made the backlash against Rogan appear novel, Rogan is no stranger to controversy. Past guests on his podcast have ranged from alt-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to transphobic author Abigail Shrier; all given an outlet to express inaccurate claims such as the efficacy of masks against COVID-19. The podcaster has also come under fire for repeatedly using the N-word, an offense that prompted R&B singer India Arie to pull her content from Spotify. All in all, plenty of precedent exists for the contention surrounding Rogan.
As in the cases of other corporations embroiled in free speech controversies, like Facebook and Twitter, the license Spotify possesses to mediate the content that it houses is not cut-and-dry. Not only does the line between acceptable and harmful speech blur upon interrogation, but it is unclear whether corporations should wield the power to make such a distinction. Like Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says, “Canceling voices is a slippery slope.” However, Spotify has also complicated this ambiguity. In 2020, the company struck a deal worth roughly $100 million with Rogan for exclusive rights to JRE. While Spotify touts its commitment to free speech, the lucrative nature of Rogan’s podcast, which brings in over 11 million listeners per episode, undoubtedly slants its motivations. As long as Spotify monetarily supports Rogan and reaps the benefits, the platform cannot serve as an impartial protector of free speech and creative expression. Instead, its financial backing of Rogan implies a certain responsibility for his rhetoric.
Scrambling to mitigate the public outrage it has incited, Spotify has committed $100 million—the same sum as Rogan’s deal—to “music and audio content from historically marginalized groups.” This investment rings hollow; not only does it distribute an amount of money originally designated for one man to many artists, but considering Rogan’s history of racist comments, it also serves more as an admission of guilt than an acceptance of accountability. Aside from this half-hearted gesture, Spotify has made its content guidelines public and added content advisories to podcast episodes discussing COVID-19. However, the application of these guidelines remains murky. Despite Spotify’s claim that it has taken down over 20,000 COVID-19-related podcast episodes, the methodology the company used to weed out these episodes is unclear, and a crucial question persists: do Spotify’s policies regarding misinformation apply as inconsistently to small, less profitable creators as they do to big creators like Rogan?
Spotify’s refusal to meet calls for transparency in its decisions on content moderation only underscores the larger problem with the service: its prioritization of profit at the expense of the artists and audiences it built a name off of. This issue is most apparent in the long-standing qualms against the financial compensation Spotify and other streaming services provide to musical artists. When determining how royalties should be apportioned to artists, large streaming platforms such as Spotify utilize a pro-rata model, pooling and dividing monthly revenue between artists based on the percentage of total streams that their music receives. Under this model, artists can be paid as little as $0.003 per stream, and for many users, a portion of their money goes to artists they do not listen to, a payout system disproportionately favoring top-streamed artists. Not only is the pro-rata model unsustainable for smaller artists who lack alternative sources of income, but it is also detrimental to artistry. Musicians are presented with the dilemma of whether to churn out music in order to maximize streaming revenue versus taking time on their craft at the risk of losing financial stability.
As with the Rogan fiasco, the financial injustice committed by Spotify has drawn its own share of outrage. Organized by the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers in 2020, the campaign Justice at Spotify has demanded compensation for artists of at least one cent per stream and increased transparency regarding Spotify’s financial dealings. While Justice at Spotify and similar movements have garnered substantial press coverage, unlike the fresh pushback against Spotify, they have largely faded from the public consciousness. Even though artists such as Thom Yorke of Radiohead have spoken out against the platform’s inequitable pay structure, many of the artists currently boycotting Spotify remain silent regarding the issue.
This lack of support reeks of hypocrisy. While big artists like Young and Mitchell adopt firm stances against COVID-19 misinformation, they can afford to be silent on the financial injustice faced by smaller artists, who have been unevenly disadvantaged by the pandemic’s suppression of live events and thus are increasingly reliant on streaming income. Coupled with this ignorance is the irony underlying the publicity many artists boycotting Spotify have generated for other large streaming services. Take Neil Young, who directed his fans toward Amazon Music with his offer of a four-month free subscription. Young’s support of Amazon, a company notorious for providing unsafe working conditions during the pandemic, dilutes the sentiment behind his call for corporate responsibility.
The mere exchange of talent between large corporations exploiting their artists and workers underlies the current structural problem facing the music industry. The command of streaming by a handful of companies such as Spotify and Apple has backed artists into a corner, forcing them to choose between platforms equally unlikely to provide fair compensation for their work. This chokehold, unfairly affecting smaller artists, is only tightened by the domination of the music industry by the three powerhouse record labels: Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. Not only do these labels account for a majority of the music streamed on Spotify, but the artists they represent are favored for placement onto Spotify’s editorial playlists, further perpetuating the advantages enjoyed by top creators. Within this structure, small artists are left floundering in the sea of Big Music.
In an era of music conglomerates and favoritism of large artists, Spotify can get away with maintaining lucrative deals with the likes of Rogan while scamming less profitable creators. With the Spotify boycott, the time seems ripe for artists to hold Spotify accountable for its transgressions and capitalize on the negative publicity to build a broader movement. However, the focus of the press and the artists boycotting Spotify has largely remained on the offenses of Rogan. The muteness of Young, Mitchell, and other musicians on Spotify’s unjust pay structure reflects their ignorance of a critical opportunity to alter the inequities of the music industry.
Aside from generating structural change, there are multiple avenues for consumers with the means and desire to support fair compensation of artists to do so. An arguable step toward more just treatment of artists is the use of platforms such as Deezer and Tidal, which utilize a user-centric model, directing earnings from a user only toward the artists who that user listened to. While not a streaming service, Bandcamp is another alternative for music enthusiasts to easily buy physical and digital copies of music while connecting with their favorite independent artists. Inaction may paralyze corporations and entertainers, but consumers are still capable of waging their own war against the music industry’s exploitative practices.
Ultimately, the fight versus COVID-19 misinformation is a critical move toward pushing Spotify towards greater transparency regarding those they platform and fund. However, the pushback against Rogan is only a fraction of the battle — Spotify’s prioritization of profit over the artists it claims to value will not end without public pressure, whether Rogan is held accountable or not. Standing up against Spotify’s unfair treatment of its artists will take more than sporadic, short-lived thrashings in the news. To this end, the recent movement to boycott Spotify has passed up an opportunity to radically alter the unethical practices of the music industry. If top artists and the general public continue to avoid investment in the well-being of all artists and movements such as Justice at Spotify, such opportunities will continue to slip by.
