Attempting to deplatform Joe Rogan is not about the truth

Manipulation, control, and profits encapsulate the Spotify issue

Colin Mullaney / Asst. News Editor / The USD Vista

I awoke on the morning of Jan. 29 to the news that Joni Mitchell was pulling all of her music from Spotify and felt a sinking in my stomach. Mitchell was not the first to go, rather she said in a public statement that she was “standing in solidarity with Neil Young” in protest of Joe Rogan’s podcast and exclusive $100 million contract with Spotify. 

In particular, Young and Mitchell were upset with Rogan for giving a platform to guests like doctor and mRNA vaccine developer, Dr. Robert Malone, who presented views contrary to the mainstream narrative on COVID-19 vaccines. 

Young and Mitchell demanded that Rogan be deplatformed and his contract terminated  by Spotify before they would make their triumphant returns. As both a Mitchell and Rogan fan, the situation forced me to decide where I stand on the issue of deplatforming opposing views: part of the broader, ongoing conversation around censorship and cancel culture.

Everyone knows the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the right to free speech, the cornerstone of a thriving democracy; but, the First Amendment also does not apply to private institutions and corporations, which can regulate their own internal affairs and employees as they please. 

On principle, therefore, I am in favor of allowing Spotify to censor or deplatform Joe Rogan as they see fit. However, that does not mean that they should deplatform Rogan, that their intentions for doing so would be pure, or that we should willingly accept censorship as the new normal in media and tech.

As it stands, Spotify has not terminated its contract with Rogan, but renegotiated with him to remove particular episodes, like his episode with Dr. Malone, and preface the show with disclaimers. 

But this fight is not settled, nor is it an isolated incident. Rather, part of a string of battles already fought and lost by proponents of free speech and open dialogue. 

Deplatforming of major figures began when Twitter banned former president Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection, which gave unprecedented power to Big Tech companies. If Twitter can silence the leader of the free world, then they can silence anyone, and that should concern you no matter your political leanings. Big Tech CEOs are, in this way, more powerful than the entire American electorate, and who’s to say they won’t yield the same unregulated power against you, if they so choose? 

Ironically, Twitter banned Trump for his authoritarian use of power by wielding authoritarian-style power against him. And while it may be within Twitter’s legal rights to ban its users, it sets a dangerous precedent that has already expanded with the permanent ban of Georgia congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, for alleged COVID-19 misinformation. 

This overreach by Big Tech is exactly the sort of behavior that got populist Trump and Greene elected in the first place. Big Tech is poking the bear of the Republican base, and if they are not careful, they will be responsible for Trump 2024.

The heart of the matter is, deplatforming is not only unprecedented, unregulated, and overreaching, but actually counterproductive to its professed goals. Nothing makes consumers more interested in listening to content than banning it. It’s human nature 101. 

Censors waving their hands around and shouting “nothing to see here” like the Wizard of Oz is probably the biggest tell that something nefarious is going on. It attracts more attention to the censored material than simply leaving it alone.

In a democracy, one must necessarily believe, as Shakespeare says,  “the Truth will out.” Otherwise, how can the population be trusted to cast a vote or make important decisions on anything? 

Censorship reflects a clear distrust in the ability of Truth to prevail, relies on the subjective judgments of a select few individuals, and therefore it is antidemocratic. 

Certain powerful figures in Big Media and Tech have stopped believing in this underlying principle of Truth and democracy, and so they concur that the only way to influence is to manipulate and destroy those they disagree with, which has lasting, negative implications for us all.

For this reason, theirs is not a populist approach — for the public good like they claim — but an elitist and self-interested one. Consider, for example, that those now publicizing the Rogan controversy, smearing him publicly, and calling for him to be deplatformed are mostly members of the legacy media, who are his direct competitors for viewership and profits. 

So, if Joni Mitchell disagrees with Rogan’s guests, she should not be trying to get his content censored by removing her own impressive life’s work from Spotify. 

Instead she should be creating her own, better content to counterbalance Rogan’s guests. If she believes in the message and truth she professes, she would benefit by promoting her own songs more. Not holding her content hostage. 

In reality, Mitchell and Young know they’re played out and can’t outcompete Rogan’s 11 million listeners per episode, so they’re throwing a tantrum for publicity, clinging to relevance. 

Mitchell knows better, Spotify hopefully knows better, and we all have to do better to see through these manipulative, self-interested tactics behind cancel culture.