Personally I really hate that idea. Spotify is a for-profit corporation. It's only official view is to make as much money as possible. Any other political or philosophical statement is at best a calculated ploy to make more profit. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Now, if the platform were a publicly funded news organization or TV station, then you could make that argument with a straight face.

> It's only official view is to make as much money as possible

A couple years ago there was a giant banner at the top of my premium Spotify page reminding me not to beat up Asian people.

Thank goodness they curtailed my race-based violence as a Spotify subscriber, but I don't see how that makes them money.

I suppose the virtue signalling was a calculated ploy, but it seems like a long and winding road getting from those banners to more premium accounts.

If you associate warm and fuzzy feelings with a company, you give them more business -- a very old advertising principle.

Knowing that Spotify doesn't want you to beat up Asians gives the majority of people warm and fuzzies. And I suspect the tiny minority of dudes that want to punch an an old Asian lady are unlikely to do what Spotify tells them to do anyway.

They make money by convincing customers to give them money. They need to at least act like they are concerned.

And grant a clear copyright use of the audio to people to produce commentary style rebuttals?

Even better.

I think it's unfair for you to call him an idiot. Have you seen his video[0] on the "controversy" surrounding him at the moment? I think it will greatly enlighten you as to who the idiot is in this situation.

[0]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CZYQ_nDJi6G/?hl=en