Joe Rogan, Alex Jones & Spotify: The Neutrality Debate

Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have faced significant criticism regarding their handling of potentially problematic content, with concerns ranging from insufficient action against misinformation to accusations of censorship. However, Spotify has largely remained outside of this discussion, perhaps because its core business traditionally centered on the distribution of recorded music and associated financial concerns for artists.

This situation is now evolving as Spotify expands into the podcasting realm, prompting debate about the company’s responsibility in overseeing the content featured on its service. The central question emerging is who should be granted a platform and under what conditions.

This issue gained prominence recently when Joe Rogan, a popular and highly compensated podcaster known for his libertarian views, hosted Alex Jones – the controversial figure behind InfoWars, whose podcast was previously removed from Spotify along with other platforms in 2018 – for a three-hour conversation. This event sparked widespread criticism, with many objecting to Spotify providing a platform for someone with a history of spreading misinformation.

The discussion, which also included comedian Tim Dillon, touched upon numerous contentious subjects, often presenting unsubstantiated or refuted claims as factual, and frequently focused on criticisms of the Democratic party.

Rogan attempted to challenge some of the assertions made during the conversation. For instance, when Jones suggested that Democrats were heavily influenced by lobbyists, while Trump was not, Rogan presented real-time web searches demonstrating a more complex reality, including evidence of payments made by AT&T to Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Jones responded with what he termed a “Gestalt analysis,” and subsequently offered a defense of Jared Kushner, stating, “Everything he touches he turns to gold,” despite evidence to the contrary.

The conversation continued with various topics, including allegations that Democrats intentionally attempted to harm the economy to undermine Trump’s presidency, and a vague discussion regarding the efficacy of vaccines, which some fear could reinforce skepticism towards public health recommendations related to Covid-19.

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1321463643536453632

Currently, Spotify has not issued a public statement in response to this situation. Attempts to reach the company for comment have been unsuccessful, mirroring past experiences where inquiries have gone unanswered for extended periods.

It is worth noting that while Spotify provides clear guidelines for reporting illegal music or explicit lyrics, it has yet to publicly define its content policies specifically for podcasts.

Indications suggest the company may be employing delaying tactics in addressing this issue directly.

BuzzFeed has published a leaked memo from Spotify’s legal officer, Horacio Gutierrez, dated today, which appears to defend the company’s stance on hosting controversial podcasts. The memo emphasizes the freedom of hosts to invite any guests, and directs concerns to the Trust & Safety team for investigation rather than responding to public criticism.

“If a team member has concerns about any piece of content on our platform, you should encourage them to report it to Trust & Safety because they are the experts on our team charged with reviewing content,” Gutierrez wrote. “However, it’s important that they aren’t simply flagging a piece of content just because of something they’ve read online. It’s all too common that things are taken out of context.”

Talking points included in the memo seem to reinforce Spotify’s position as a neutral platform, prioritizing creative expression and diverse viewpoints: “Spotify has always been a place for creative expressions,” Gutierrez wrote. “It’s important to have diverse voices and points of view on our platform.”

The memo further clarifies that podcasts complying with Spotify’s content policies – the specifics of which remain undefined – will not be subject to guest bans: “We are not going to ban specific individuals from being guests on other people’s shows, as the episode/show complies with our content policies.”

Gutierrez concluded by stating that “we appreciate that not all of you will agree with every piece of content on our platform. However, we do expect you to help your teams understand our role as a platform and the care we take in making decisions.”

Concerns were initially raised when Rogan joined Spotify in an exclusive deal reportedly worth $100 million earlier this summer, bringing the question of content moderation to the forefront. These concerns stemmed from Rogan’s previous controversies, including the use of language considered transphobic by members of the LGBTQ community, an issue that remains unresolved. These questions have now resurfaced, accompanied by calls for boycotts.

https://twitter.com/moorehn/status/1321432405752905728

Regardless of whether this leads to a decline in users, it highlights a shift in the company’s profile and suggests that Spotify has historically enjoyed a lenient approach to content regulation. The company has prioritized securing exclusive talent and rapid growth, often overlooking the potential implications of the content those individuals produce.

An interesting consideration is whether other prominent hosts might reconsider their association with Spotify if they disagree with the company’s editorial stance. Another question is whether this situation will attract the attention of regulatory bodies.

Today, executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google are appearing before the Senate to address concerns about bias on their platforms and their content moderation practices, as well as their potential liability for that content. It may be time to include Spotify in these discussions as well.