The artists removed their music following controversial statements made on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, to which Spotify owns the exclusive rights. Among other false claims, the popular host has suggested that younger Americans are not at risk from the virus and do not need a vaccine.
Young has stated that Spotify “has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform” – a responsibility he says they are failing to fulfil. In an ultimatum to the streamer, he proclaimed “they can have Rogan or Young. Not both."
Rogan’s actions were labelled as “not only objectionable and offensive but also medically and culturally dangerous.”
Young and Mitchell stand behind the scientific and medical community which last month urged Spotify to address the production of distorted information. In an open letter, signed by more than 270 science professionals, Rogan’s actions were labelled as “not only objectionable and offensive but also medically and culturally dangerous.”
Young and Mitchell’s withdrawal from the platform certainly speaks volumes; however, neither artist possesses the market power to force Spotify’s hand and incite significant change. Spotify has since added disclaimers to podcast episodes containing contested views of Covid-19, as well as publishing its company content rules. This seems a fairly meagre and lacklustre response from the platform.
The controversy forces us to consider the integral role Spotify has created for itself within the music industry. The streaming giant has become indispensable for the exposure and income of artists. For the likes of Young and Mitchell, who have enjoyed a lucrative career spanning many decades, this act of defiance is one they can afford. For the majority of less prolific and high-profile artists, however, the removal of their music in protest simply isn’t an option.
This isn’t Spotify’s first clash with music artists and it certainly won’t be its last. It seems some media giants are too big to fall.