I was shocked to learn that Spotify was headquartered in Sweden. Until I read about Spotify and their CEO I had assumed they were based in America because to me they were just like all the other big tech companies in terms of lack of morals and ethics.
Spotify has a deal with Joe Rogan worth up to $250 million according to an article published in Variety. This was the deal that was signed in 2024. They've previously given Joe Rogan other very lucrative deals giving Rogan a massive platform and funding to spread disinformation, propaganda and lies and don't forget things like saying the N word.
So by using Spotify you're funding Joe Rogan who as we all know is based in America.
But that's not the only way your money was used to support the far-right in America. Spotify donated to Trump's inauguration. Do you want your money being used to bribe Trump?
In addition Spotify has also garnered controversy for allowing ICE recruitment ads and is already being boycotted by groups such as Indivisible.
Also let's talk about Daniel Ek who was until recently their CEO but will still be very involved with Spotify. Was he born in Sweden? Yes. But what are his values like? Are they different from American billionaires? "Daniel Ek warns Sweden that Spotify may be forced to grow elsewhere" hmmmm.... I kind of having a feeling that might be a no.
Another thing is I researched how many employees Spotify has in each country and multiple websites such as this one claimed they have the most in the United States. At the end of the day how much of a European company is Spotify if they just have their headquartes in Sweden and is from what I've read mostly used for executives and operations?
You know what they say "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". I personally don't see any reason for treating Spotify different from all the US-based big tech companies but I'll admit at the end of the day it is true they are headquartered in the EU so I propose a compromise: use Spotify as much as you like as long as you're using the free version and using the website (not the app which has more ability to collect data and track you) with an ad blocker such as uBlock Origin. Cancel your subscriptions. When you cancel mention that you don't like your money being used to fund disinformation via paying Joe Rogan so much money.
You've lost me there. I won't disagree with your points, but I am curious...
Spotify was created and built in Sweden by Swedish people. I know nothing about what you are referring to regarding the far right and Joe Rogan etc. - I have heard of him, but I do not know anything about him, what he looks like or what he has actually said about anything. I do know that (I think) he is very far right in his opinion.
But... Can the far left or whoever are the opposite of these extreme politics not just pay for advertisements or produce popular content etc. on the same platform, would spotify take their money, allow their content for profit?
Or
Are spotify exclusively working and promoting the far right?
I don't agree with shutting down somebody or something because you don't agree with them or it. I believe it could be far more effective and better for everyone if you explain why you think somebody is wrong in what they are saying, and what way you think it would be better to do something that they are talking about.
The Irish government allowing Apple, Google, Amazon and other big tech to not pay any taxes whilst not really helping the country as a whole is a good reason for the Irish to dislike them, but they (the government) believe that the employment - and more importantly the money that they bring to them is more important than their countries future. It will not be 20 years before they have all pulled out and left Ireland like one of the barren states in the U.S., devoid of employment, with both Dublin and Cork falling into Urban decay.
It is possible to agree with a little bit of one and little bit of the other, and a lot of neither. No point in silencing one to make your voice louder. Just make your points better.
I see your point about my Apple example. I ended up thinking about this more and removed it from my post because it's not a good example.
I will say I did research where Spotify has the most employees and it says they have the most in the United States so it's not built solely by Swedish people. In fact I suspect the percentage of Spotify built by Swedish people to be somewhat low or very likely less than 50% but I don't have enough information to be sure on this, this is conjecture on my part.
For far-right I'm saying that Trump is far-right so supporting Trump is supporting the far-right in America.
Joe Rogan actually isn't the most extreme right wing person. What I object to most is his willingness to spread disinformation. Here's a good article about him: https://www.mediamatters.org/joe-rogan-experience/joe-rogan-wrapped-year-covid-19-misinformation-right-wing-myths-and-anti-trans
In fact the very first line in the article is "Joe Rogan: โYou can say whatever you want. Weโre on Spotify.โ".
I suspect that yes the "far-left" would be allowed to use Spotify and a quick glance seems to show that it's allowed.
About shutting things down because of disagreements I understand you there. If someone believed all bike sheds should be painted blue and someone else thought they should be painted green in that case it's likely blue advocates would try to shut down the green advocate's podcasts simply due to disagreements even thought it would be wrong to do so.
But now let's imagine this: the people in favor of blue paint started to be dishonest by spreading disinformation and advocated for harming people who wanted green paint. Isn't that different morally? I do thank platforms should take a stance against disinformation.
Also with my paint example neither opinion causes harm to society. What happens if someone advocates for things that are harmful to others like anti-vax? That has real world consequences.
About trying to make better points that's also a good point, no matter if Rogan is allowed or not we should be doing this.
Definitely. That should be enforced more. Companies should be fined every time they allow their platform to be used to spread disinformation. โฌ1 for every person believed to have read/listened/viewed something. If 500,000 people viewed it and it spread to millions, then obviously the larger effect should have a deeper reach into their pockets.
There is no "far left" - not in the sense of the organised "far right", that is, with massive financiers behind it - because what could be considered far left is generally a group of fringe edgelords who firmly believe that e.g Russia, North Korea or China are 1, prime examples of well implemented communism 2, these countries can do no wrong 3, we should all bow to them and follow their ways. Basically just as batshit as the far right, but considerably smaller in numbers and even more excluded as the far right is by the general right...