However, this is not a free speech issue. "free speech" only makes sense in the context of government regulation (vs individuals/corporations), because governments have a monopoly on violence. As soon as two non-government entities are "regulating each other", it is a matter of mutual free speech. e.g. what about the free speech of Spotify?
There is no hypocrisy here. Rogan can still be pro-"free speech" given that is in the context of government regulation. Rogan can also still be pro-"anti censorship" in terms of stifling competition (which a lot of people conflate with "free speech"). However, Rogan is running a business and so is Spotify, they made a mutually beneficial deal, no competition was stifled.
I also find it quite interesting how the same people using the "private business" excuse also keep taking a baker to courts for refusing to write something on a cake which is against his beliefs.
As for Joe Rogan, he specifically lied to his viewers (I am saying this as someone who's a fan of his btw). He specifically told viewers last year that he will have full control over his content and Spotify gave him full freedom. He even made bs excuses when a few of his episodes didn't get ported over to Spotify and he claimed it was because of a technical glitch. Somehow the glitches only happened to the "controversial" people shows.
I am surprised he hasn't been class action sued yet considering his false claims and advertisements might have gotten many people to subscribe to Spotify. As a fan of his, this was deeply disappointing and I actually hope he gets sued for lying to his viewers.
This analogy only works if and only if Rosa Parks was getting paid $100 MM to sit in the back of the bus. Rest assured, both of us agree she was in a very, very different situation.
> As for Joe Rogan, he specifically lied to his viewers
Yeah, I agree this is a reasonable assertion. JRE should not have made claims they couldn’t keep.