Chapter 1: The Conflict Between Art and Misinformation

Recently, Neil Young issued a stark choice to Spotify: choose between him or Joe Rogan. Personally, I have enjoyed countless hours of Neil Young's music, while my exposure to Joe Rogan has been minimal. Young is a rock icon, while Rogan often misses the mark in terms of credibility. It is easy to see why Spotify might favor a significant revenue generator like Rogan over an artist whose peak popularity was decades ago. Young's streaming numbers simply do not compare to Rogan's.

This situation highlights a commendable push from music lovers and artists against Spotify's support of someone who disseminates harmful misinformation. However, can we acknowledge the influence of performative activism in this scenario? Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn also propagate similar problematic content. Why aren't there boycotts against them? Admittedly, these platforms did not ink a $100 million deal with Rogan, yet they allowed the former U.S. President to distribute COVID misinformation and unfounded election claims for months without facing any penalties.

A study from Cornell in 2020 revealed that Donald Trump was the primary contributor to the spread of COVID misinformation, analyzing a staggering 38 million English-language documents. Despite this, he faced no ban. Twitter may not have entered into a lucrative agreement with Trump, but his controversial behavior attracted users to their site, making it counterproductive for them to remove him.

The discourse surrounding Spotify has taken on a highly politicized nature. Many Democrats perceive this as a matter of unethical corporate governance, arguing that the company profits from the spread of dangerous misinformation about COVID. In contrast, Republicans view the potential banning of Joe Rogan as an infringement on free speech. They even elevate Rogan, proclaiming, “Thank you for exercising your freedom to share harmful COVID misinformation with millions!” This situation is not about free speech; when someone propagates dangerous falsehoods leading to loss of life, no responsible corporation should reward them financially.

Regrettably, it wouldn't be surprising if the public forgets that Spotify prioritized Joe Rogan over Neil Young within a few months. The rapid news cycle often leads to a collective amnesia, allowing scandal-ridden figures to rehabilitate their images without facing substantial repercussions. The abundance of information available today makes it even harder for any single story to maintain relevance.

Although I have critiqued Big Tech and corporate greed, I still find myself using their services — a necessity given that a few companies dominate the landscape. Just a short while ago, Georgia enacted a series of voter suppression laws, prompting companies like Coca-Cola and Delta to threaten relocation from Atlanta. Ultimately, the legislation remained unchanged, and these corporations have since retreated from public discourse. While these boycotts are well-intentioned, they often lack longevity. Opting out of Spotify merely shifts business to competitors like Amazon or Apple Music, illustrating that as long as these corporations hold such power, there is no clear resolution.

Section 1.1: The Role of Social Media in Misinformation

The rampant spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been exacerbated by social media platforms.

Subsection 1.1.1: The Impact of Celebrity Influence

The influence of public figures on the dissemination of false information is significant.

Chapter 2: The Consequences of Misinformation

In this video, we explore the alarming spread of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its implications for public health.

This video delves into how misinformation is created and circulated globally, shedding light on the mechanisms behind it.