Edit: A lot of the rhetoric about "dissenting voices" fundamentally boils down to Nazis wanting to speak about Nazi shit and being given a platform. They do not deserve one, because the ideology quite simply cannot be trusted and should not exist.
Yes, many minority groups are absolutely terrible and deserve the contempt they get. That absolutely includes Nazis. However, many minority groups throughout history - ones who weren't advocating for genocide, eugenics, and world domination - have had to fight against oppression to have their voices heard.
Like it or not, what is ethically acceptable in a society is determined by popular consensus. Abhorrent ideals can, and have become acceptable by virtue of simply being popular. Our consensus should be challenged and evaluated regularly. If we truly are right, we should not be afraid of having our views put to the test.
Besides, if you don't expose people to alternative opinions (even terrible ones), then you never have a chance to adequately explain why those opinions are wrong. If you teach someone that something is right or wrong and never fairly address points from the opposition, that person is going to be relatively easy to convince otherwise.
We see that happen with people in political parties all the time. Someone grows up a staunch believer in a particular party's ideals, then suddenly flips when they are put in a position to consider the other party's points.
Simplifying the issue to "Nazis wanting to speak about Nazi shit" is extremely disingenuous.
The article is pretty sensationalized - it does not explicitly cite what the employees were looking for or what the leadership was willing to do. We've got the content of two employees' questions, a comment from the CEO that doesn't seem to be a response to either of them, a canned response from a comms person after the fact, and a rehash of Rogan's latest controversies.
They are. Ek: "The fact that we aren't changing our position doesn't mean we aren't listening. It just means we made a different judgment call."
Should they listen to all employees, about every single issue? What if only 1% if employees ask for it? Or 10%? Where’s the line?
> This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company
I don’t work at Spotify but worked enough at big companies to disagree with that. Behavior of employees inside trendy tech companies is very much like angry Twitter mob.
Only if those employees are presenting objective arguments e.g. "adding this podcast may lead to customers cancelling their subscriptions, or to legislation being applied".
If it's a case of "I don't like it" then the company doesn't have any obligation to listen.
Even if Spotify wasn't effectively publishing the Joe Rogan Experience, I do think Spotify's employees have grounds to complain. Spotify has not built themselves as an open platform for free thought - they have built themselves as a curated music streaming service. Employees who do not want to support an open platform for free thought could be justifiably upset.
I'm just sick of open platforms in general being expected by external forces to curate their content like a publisher.
Not really. The expectation is that as a paying customer you’ll have access to the music you’re interested in. Their shtick has never been curation.
Mostly, that opinion is that you should really be mad about something because that's what gets the engagement numbers to go up. That's what they choose to show you.
Media platforms are shaping us stronger than anything else. Allowing them to hold a status as unbiased when obviously not causes damage.
JRE should be able to be hosted but that's not because Spotify (or Facebook or twitter) should hold a special protected status.