[krapp]

>The question is, should they?

Maybe the question should be why shouldn't they?

If the employees are protesting in good faith and not employing violence to coerce their employer, why shouldn't they?

If Spotify feels editorial control is in their business interests, and it doesn't violate their contract with Joe Rogan, why shouldn't they exercise it?

It's odd that so many people are complaining so vehemently about a situation in which the rights that Hacker News usually considers sacrosanct - voluntary contracts, capitalism and free speech, are not actually being undermined.

[wolco2]

If spotify management wishes to end an agreement with Joe they will. Why should spotify management end that agreement? Because a group of employees want it?

Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?

[krapp]

>Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?

There's no obligation that Spotify management consider or concede to all future employee demands if they choose to consider or concede to any group's demands in the present. They'll do whatever makes the best business sense to them at the time, which today might mean breaking this agreement, and tomorrow might mean defending another one.