Entertainment

The big takeaway from Spotify's Rogan problem: Platforms need rules

Spotify is entitled to run its platform however it wants, but without creating, explaining and enforcing the rules, companies wind up stuck between their business and their users.

Joe Rogan speaking into a microphone

To Spotify, picking a COVID-19 fight with Rogan will only make this a bigger story.

Photo: Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images

If you're going to pay Joe Rogan to make podcasts for your platform, you're eventually going to have to answer for what happens on those podcasts. And yesterday, after days of trying to ignore the issue, Spotify finally had to say something.

Here's a quick catch-up on the Rogan controversy: Spotify paid $100 million to make Rogan's podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, a Spotify exclusive. Since then, Rogan has continued to do what he always did, which is relatively frequently veer into deeply problematic content and misinformation, particularly when it comes to COVID-19. An episode from December was particularly controversial, causing a number of scientific and medical groups to accuse Rogan of "provoking distrust in science and medicine" and to urge Spotify to "mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform."

  • For a while, Spotify did nothing. This has become classic platform behavior: The first step when folks are upset about your content is to say nothing, do nothing, maybe eventually issue a statement that sort of decries the bad content but mostly says nothing. In many cases, that's enough, and things go away.
  • But this issue didn't go away. Neil Young became the first big-name artist to pull his music from Spotify "because Spotify is spreading fake information about the vaccines." Joni Mitchell and a couple of other artists have followed suit. Brene Brown also said she's stopping production on her popular podcast, though she hasn't explicitly tied the decision to the Rogan fiasco.

Spotify published a blog post yesterday that kinda, sorta addressed the issue. Rogan is never mentioned, but Daniel Ek's post did acknowledge that "you've had a lot of questions over the last few days about our platform policies and the lines we have drawn between what is acceptable and what is not."

  • Ek's post sounded eerily familiar to anyone who has followed the content moderation issues with Facebook and other platforms. He intimated that Spotify doesn't agree with what Rogan said, without ever explicitly saying so. And he said that "it is important to me that we don't take on the position of being content censor," which is a line straight out of the Mark Zuckerberg canon.
  • Spotify did make a few changes in response to the uproar: It published its content guidelines for the first time, and said it's working on adding a "content advisory" to every podcast that includes discussion of COVID that will direct people to accurate information about the subject. That's also what Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and others did in response to misinformation and disinformation about the pandemic.

Spotify is in a tough situation here. Moderating audio — on demand on Spotify or live on Greenroom — is hard, especially at scale. And it's even harder when the offending party is your flagship product, the show you spent a fortune to bring onto your platform. Was Spotify ever really going to take Neil Young's side instead of the most popular podcast on its platform?

Still, Ek's response rang hollow to many critics. Whether Spotify has a responsibility to moderate every podcast on its platform is a genuinely interesting question, and one the company should think deeply about especially as it continues to invest in technology that helps it understand what's happening on those shows. But there's less question as to whether Spotify has a responsibility for the shows it pays to produce and promotes aggressively to its hundreds of millions of users.

  • It wants to be seen like Facebook or YouTube: a more or less neutral platform on which people might sometimes post horrible things. But Facebook and YouTube aren't directly funding their most problematic contributors. And they're definitely not writing $100 million checks.
  • Spotify's newly published Platform Rules fall short of prescribing much of anything. As far as I can tell, Rogan didn't violate any of them. Even the section titled "What happens to rule breakers?" just says content might be taken down and accounts might be suspended. Even the rules aren't really rules so much as gentle nudgings.
  • But Facebook and YouTube do give those creators monetization and growth tools, and recommend their content to users. So ... is it that different for Spotify to just write Rogan a check? That's hard to know.

Spotify is clearly hoping people just move on. This whole thing is reminiscent of the uproar at Netflix over Dave Chappelle's special last year; in that case Netflix offered similar reassurances, nothing changed, and things quieted down. It's certainly clear to Spotify that picking a COVID fight with Rogan and his fans will only make this a bigger story, so it seems to hope that everyone will believe it cares about all this and find something else to worry about.

But the momentum against Spotify seems to still be building. "Delete Spotify" was trending on Twitter for a while, as was #spotifyexodus. Most of all, if other artists join Young in boycotting the service, it could change Spotify's calculus. It definitely needs Rogan more than it needs Young, but what about Ed Sheeran or Drake or Taylor Swift or Adele?

  • Rogan posted an Instagram video on Sunday night, saying he was sorry Young and Mitchell felt like they had to leave Spotify and that he could do a better job on "controversial" topics. But he's not taking down any episodes either. He also thanked Spotify for "being so supportive during this time."

The real takeaway is this: Platforms need rules. Those rules need to be clear, they need to be publicly accessible, and they need to be enforced equally across all users and creators. Spotify is, of course, entitled to run its platform however it wants. But if you don't create the rules, explain them, and enforce them, you're going to find yourself stuck between your business and your users. And that's not a good place to be.

A version of this story also appeared in today's Source Code newsletter; subscribe here.

LA is a growing tech hub. But not everyone may fit.

LA has a housing crisis similar to Silicon Valley’s. And single-family-zoning laws are mostly to blame.

As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers, whose high salaries put them at an advantage in both LA's renting and buying markets.

Photo: Nat Rubio-Licht/Protocol

LA’s tech scene is on the rise. The number of unicorn companies in Los Angeles is growing, and the city has become the third-largest startup ecosystem nationally behind the Bay Area and New York with more than 4,000 VC-backed startups in industries ranging from aerospace to creators. As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers. The city is quickly becoming more and more like Silicon Valley — a new startup and a dozen tech workers on every corner and companies like Google, Netflix, and Twitter setting up offices there.

But with growth comes growing pains. Los Angeles, especially the burgeoning Silicon Beach area — which includes Santa Monica, Venice, and Marina del Rey — shares something in common with its namesake Silicon Valley: a severe lack of housing.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

While there remains debate among economists about whether we are officially in a full-blown recession, the signs are certainly there. Like most executives right now, the outlook concerns me.

In any case, businesses aren’t waiting for the official pronouncement. They’re already bracing for impact as U.S. inflation and interest rates soar. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — the highest increase since November 1981 — and the Federal Reserve is targeting an interest rate of 3% by the end of this year.

Keep Reading Show less
Nancy Sansom

Nancy Sansom is the Chief Marketing Officer for Versapay, the leader in Collaborative AR. In this role, she leads marketing, demand generation, product marketing, partner marketing, events, brand, content marketing and communications. She has more than 20 years of experience running successful product and marketing organizations in high-growth software companies focused on HCM and financial technology. Prior to joining Versapay, Nancy served on the senior leadership teams at PlanSource, Benefitfocus and PeopleMatter.

Policy

SFPD can now surveil a private camera network funded by Ripple chair

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a policy that the ACLU and EFF argue will further criminalize marginalized groups.

SFPD will be able to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks in certain circumstances.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ripple chairman and co-founder Chris Larsen has been funding a network of security cameras throughout San Francisco for a decade. Now, the city has given its police department the green light to monitor the feeds from those cameras — and any other private surveillance devices in the city — in real time, whether or not a crime has been committed.

This week, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a controversial plan to allow SFPD to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks during life-threatening emergencies, large events, and in the course of criminal investigations, including investigations of misdemeanors. The decision came despite fervent opposition from groups, including the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which say the police department’s new authority will be misused against protesters and marginalized groups in a city that has been a bastion for both.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Enterprise

These two AWS vets think they can finally solve enterprise blockchain

Vendia, founded by Tim Wagner and Shruthi Rao, wants to help companies build real-time, decentralized data applications. Its product allows enterprises to more easily share code and data across clouds, regions, companies, accounts, and technology stacks.

“We have this thesis here: Cloud was always the missing ingredient in blockchain, and Vendia added it in,” Wagner (right) told Protocol of his and Shruthi Rao's company.

Photo: Vendia

The promise of an enterprise blockchain was not lost on CIOs — the idea that a database or an API could keep corporate data consistent with their business partners, be it their upstream supply chains, downstream logistics, or financial partners.

But while it was one of the most anticipated and hyped technologies in recent memory, blockchain also has been one of the most failed technologies in terms of enterprise pilots and implementations, according to Vendia CEO Tim Wagner.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Fintech

Kraken's CEO got tired of being in finance

Jesse Powell tells Protocol the bureaucratic obligations of running a financial services business contributed to his decision to step back from his role as CEO of one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges.

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Kraken is going through a major leadership change after what has been a tough year for the crypto powerhouse, and for departing CEO Jesse Powell.

The crypto market is still struggling to recover from a major crash, although Kraken appears to have navigated the crisis better than other rivals. Despite his exchange’s apparent success, Powell found himself in the hot seat over allegations published in The New York Times that he made insensitive comments on gender and race that sparked heated conversations within the company.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Latest Stories
Bulletins