Chapter 1: Understanding Free Market Rights

Neil Young's recent withdrawal from Spotify isn't about censorship; rather, it emphasizes his rights within the free market. The confusion surrounding this issue stems from a misunderstanding of the distinction between censorship and an artist's right to choose their business associations.

> “Neil Young should just focus on making music,” says the individual who likely hasn’t given a listen to “Ohio” or “Southern Man,” and who mistakenly considers “Rockin’ In The Free World” a mere campaign anthem. Next, they might claim Rage Against The Machine is just a party band.

It's difficult to determine whether the advocates for 'free speech' criticizing Neil Young genuinely believe their claims or if they have simply identified a new cultural battleground. The reality is that free speech issues do not arise between two private entities. What Young is doing is exercising the core principle of free market control: choosing with whom he engages in business.

Section 1.2: Artists Making Choices

Neil Young and several other musicians have opted to distance themselves from Spotify due to conflicting beliefs regarding COVID-19 and vaccine efficacy. They are not targeting the marginalized; rather, they are attempting to elevate the conversation. By withdrawing their music, they are sacrificing revenue, but if their actions inspire fellow artists or Spotify employees to reconsider the company's direction, that is activism, not censorship.

Chapter 2: The Slippery Slope of Censorship

Video Description: This video discusses the complexities of Spotify's relationship with Joe Rogan and the implications of artist activism in today's media landscape.

In contemplating this issue from various perspectives, I considered a hypothetical situation where Kanye West demanded that Spotify remove content from Bill Simmons that contradicted his views on health and science. If Kanye decided to withdraw his music, I would be disappointed but wouldn’t label it as censorship or a coordinated attack on Spotify.

It’s a slippery slope argument often raised, but I disagree. If an artist chooses to forgo financial opportunities by withdrawing their content due to ethical concerns, that decision is valid. Publicly voicing such a stance is also acceptable, especially when the platform is directly partnered with the contentious figure, as seen in the Spotify-Rogan situation.

Where do I draw the line? I wouldn’t support Neil Young attempting to restrict platforms from hosting Rogan's content simply because of a disagreement. If Rogan adheres to Apple Podcasts' terms of service and Apple merely serves as a host without a special agreement, we should not impede access to his audience.

Chapter 3: The Role of Tech Companies

Tech companies cannot claim neutrality when they engage in exclusive, lucrative deals with specific creators for business reasons. This extends beyond Spotify to platforms like YouTube and Substack. The power to choose whom to do business with is a vital aspect of free markets, and everyone possesses that power. How you allocate your time and money is the clearest indicator of your values.

(I welcome well-reasoned counterarguments—feel free to reach out via @hunterwalk or hunterwalk at gmail)

Update: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek addresses the need for updated platform guidelines concerning COVID-19 content. Update: Joe Rogan shares his perspective on the ongoing discussions.