Turning Up the Dial on Spotify
Podcaster Joe Rogan has come under mass scrutiny for spreading COVID-19 misinformation on Spotify. Photo by Marco Verch.
Spotify’s ambitions to expand from music to podcasts are well-known. The most notable investment occured in 2020 when the platform struck a deal said to be worth over $200 million with podcaster Joe Rogan for exclusive rights to his podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Given that Rogan’s podcast is the most famous globally—with a whopping 11 million listeners worldwide—Spotify’s stock price spiked 17% the week the partnership was revealed.
Nevertheless, Spotify got more than it bargained for when Rogan’s show faced criticism last month for spreading COVID-19 misinformation with guest speaker Dr. Robert Malone—who is currently banned from Twitter for espousing alleged COVID-19 falsehoods—and for using racial slurs with other guests on past podcast episodes. In protest, Neil Young, India Arie, and other musicians requested their music be removed from Spotify if they continued to give Rogan a platform.
Although Spotify denied responsibility for the content of Rogan’s episodes at first, the latter revelations surrounding racial slurs prompted Rogan to work with Spotify to remove approximately 110 episodes of his show from the streaming service that could be deemed insensitive or factually inaccurate. Moreover, Spotify said it would add content advisories for podcasts discussing COVID-19 and the platform’s CEO, Daniel Ek, pledged to contribute $100 million to work with podcast creators and artists from historically marginalized groups.
In the aftermath of this incident, journalists and scholars have discussed the topic in the framework of the First Amendment, stating that controversies surrounding free speech occur because our constitutional formulations are too simplistic and perhaps inadequate for our era. Historically, companies like Facebook, and now Spotify, have seen no profit in silencing or removing dissenting viewpoints, even if they are factually incorrect. Joe Rogan’s podcast survived the attempted “cancellation” by celebrities and civilians alike because Ek does not believe that “silencing Joe is the answer.” Nonetheless, Ek’s opinions on censorship are easy to adopt when the economics of Spotify work against censorship and in free speech’s favor. The most commonly used app for listening to podcasts in the U.S. is Spotify, and its advertising revenue is primarily generated through podcast content.
However, this debate is not just about free speech; it is also about market power and social values. Google bought YouTube in 2006; Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively; and in 2020, Spotify purchased entire podcasting companies, Gimlet Media and The Ringer. As such, Spotify has immense market power, and users want to stay where there is the most music available and where they can interact with other users. Most artists and podcast creators are also unlikely to follow in the footsteps of Young and Arie because they rely on Spotify to be heard by millions of listeners.
Moreover, it is only government entities that the First Amendment prevents from restricting speech. Spotify is a company and can freely promote or remove anyone from its platform. Given that the government has no say in what information Spotify publishes, change will only occur if the users’ and musicians’ values regarding Rogan’s (or another host’s) content outweigh their desire to remain on the platform. Additionally, Ek’s personal values play a crucial role here because he is the one in control of Spotify’s market power and direction. As such, if any of the public’s demand for change is going to materialize, it will only occur if Ek reconsiders how much he values Spotify’s exclusive partnership with Rogan over misinformation.
However, this debate does not reflect Spotify’s political behavior in the past. For example, leading up to the 2020 election, Spotify followed the footsteps of several digital platforms—including Facebook and Google—and banned political advertisements in hopes of preventing the spread of misinformation. The difference with Spotify denying responsibility for the content of Rogan’s episode is that Spotify has an exclusive contract with Rogan. This contract incentivizes Spotify to provide a platform for Rogan since Spotify is the only audio company that receives paying subscribers as a result of the partnership. Moreover, compared to a show Spotify does not have a partnership with, Spotify can make more money off of Rogan’s show through advertisement revenue.
In many ways, Spotify can silence voices and promote misinformation far more effectively than the government can. Spotify has guidelines in place that moderate content that could offend users, such as in instances of hate speech or pornography. However, Spotify has enforced these rules subjectively, tolerating podcasters like Rogan, who has demonstrated a dubious belief in scientific facts, while simultaneously restricting politicians from advertising opportunities because they could potentially spread misinformation.
So long as Spotify’s subscribers are willing to use and pay for the platform’s services while Rogan is still on the platform, Ek will see no value in removing him altogether. Nonetheless, although the reality of the Rogan/Spotify incident has limited legal First Amendment consequences, there are still political implications. Lawmakers such as Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have demonstrated a desire and willingness to hold Big Tech accountable for not only monopolistic tendencies, but for spreading misinformation in our elections and concealing the effect their platforms have on teen mental health. “We need [a] bill to help consumers … and to prevent the stifling of competition and the throttling of innovation,” Blumenthal said in a Senate committee debate at the beginning of this year.
With the Rogan controversy and its substantial podcast capacity, Spotify has signaled that it is now a tech platform with the power to influence national discourse—and with that power comes responsibility. It is therefore conceivable to infer that lawmakers will have a more critical eye trained on Spotify moving forward. Furthermore, the responses to the Rogan controversy also reflect the current partisan divide in America, with conservatives defending his right of free speech and liberals calling for him to be “canceled.” Rogan is no longer simply a comedian or content creator; he has become a conduit for our country’s opposing views, values, and policies.
The Spotify debate may seem frivolous in light of the military and existential crises the world is currently facing. However, the power of alternative means of expression and communication that podcasts offer has never been more critical. Spotify exemplifies how market competition and social values will increasingly become significant topics of debate for politicians, legislators, and Spotify users on all sides of the political spectrum. Perhaps images of Joe Rogan and Daniel Ek answering questions in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee are not too far behind.
Yasmine Dahlberg (CC ‘23) is a staff writer at CPR majoring in Sociology. Growing up with a Haitian-American mother and a Swedish father, her life’s mission is to find the best styling products for multi-textured curls.