[hagy]

While I agree in principle with this line of thinking, I do worry that this will just lead to platform fragmentation. My thinking is that if Spotify (or any other platform) gives in to one online mob then that will only encourage more future mobs. I imagine that there are numerous podcasts and artists that some group finds objectionable. E.g., I imagine many cultural conservative prudes find music with a lot of profanity to offend their sensibilities. Should Spotify start removing artists if such a mob forms and demands such an action?

The end result is that a content distribution platform will have to curate a specific brand that targets specific consumers and only distributes conforming content. Whereas we currently have a half dozen or so music streaming services that all have roughly the same content, we’ll soon find content fragmented across 20 different platforms; each corresponding to a specific slice of consumer preferences. Many of us will have to subscribe to multiple services to get the content we seek and will not be able to mix content. E.g., many of my current playlists on Spotify would be split across several disjoint streaming platforms.

Instead, I think platforms should never be reactive in calls for dropping content. Instead they should have a general principle of broadly distributing all but the most extreme fringe content. They can regularly update their principles used in determining what content they distribute, but that should never be done as a quick reaction to some mob. Otherwise they’ll constantly be facing a series of outraged customers that want the platform to stop distributing some content that those outraged user’s don’t even consume. And I believe that will only result in platform fragmentation as distributors curate a brand around specific segments of consumers.

[pyuser583]

I agree with you, but you’re describing a limitation of the free market.

Historically the press has dealt with this problem by taking a “lowest common denominator” approach to morality. Extreme prudishness.

For example, the infamous Hayes Code was intended to help movie producers deal with the fact that almost every American city had (different!) laws on what a movie could show.

That’s not ideal, or even an option.

[jakelazaroff]

I think the "platform fragmentation" argument might hold more water if we weren't discussing a podcast for which Spotify already has exclusive distribution rights.

[s1artibartfast]

That's a question for the lawyers, neither of us have the contracts in hand and can see what the exit Clauses are

[jakelazaroff]

Spotify announced the deal as exclusive: https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-05-19/the-joe-rogan-experi...

[s1artibartfast]

I hope you know contracts usually have more than one line, include other terms, and may not go to the end of time.

For example, if Spotify stops paying Joe Rogan, they are unlikely to remain exclusive. Another example is that they may not have rights to remove episodes, or refuse to air episodes without loosing exclusivity or paying a penalty.

My point is that we don't know what the other terms are of the contract are.

[jakelazaroff]

You’re misunderstanding me. The contract is an exclusive contract. That may not be the case in perpetuity, but either way that contract today creates the “platform fragmentation” OP is talking about about.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't see how an exclusive contract that could end tomorrow stands in the way of platform fragmentation. What am I missing?