Spotify, which has long touted its role in transforming content streaming, is now taking a controversial step by positioning itself as a gatekeeper of election information. The Sweden-based streaming giant is rolling out an extensive censorship apparatus targeting what it deems as “disinformation” — just in time for a pivotal U.S. presidential election. This move appears to be part of a broader effort by leftist elites to prevent former President Donald Trump from returning to the White House.
On May 31, Spotify unveiled its plan titled “How Spotify is Protecting Election Integrity in 2024.” This strategy bears a striking resemblance to the actions taken by Big Tech during the 2020 election, where social networks and internet providers shut down content they claimed contained disinformation, misinformation, and “malinformation.” These efforts primarily suppressed conservative voices that often challenged and debunked official narratives. Many of the censored pieces of content turned out to be inconvenient truths for those in power, who were intent on interfering in the election.
Spotify seems to be following the same playbook. Dustee Jenkins, Spotify’s chief public affairs officer, highlighted the global scope of the company’s plan to control speech. With billions of people from over 50 countries heading to the polls in 2024, Jenkins emphasized that safeguarding the platform during these critical global events is a top priority. Spotify’s approach includes prohibiting content that “attempts to manipulate or interfere with election-related processes.” The company plans to customize its censorship efforts based on various factors, including geopolitical conditions and historical precedents of online and offline harm during voting periods.
Spotify has also enlisted the help of third-party content moderation company Kinzen, which it acquired in 2022. Kinzen, founded by former Twitter executive Mark Little, uses proprietary analytical tools to determine what constitutes “dangerous misinformation.” This arrangement is reminiscent of the partnerships between state agencies and tech platforms to suppress content deemed unacceptable, often without transparency or accountability.
Kinzen’s involvement raises concerns about the suppression of conservative speech. Little’s history with Twitter, especially during times when the platform was known for its aggressive content moderation, suggests a continuation of those tactics. His recent endorsement of banning right-wing accounts to reduce misinformation further underscores this point. This kind of censorship, particularly on a platform as influential as Spotify, could significantly impact public discourse.
This development at Spotify is part of a broader trend of tech giants and government agencies working together to silence dissenting voices. Similar to how the Biden administration and other left-leaning entities have leveraged technology to control the narrative, Spotify’s actions could stifle free speech and manipulate public opinion. This concerted effort to “reduce risk” by targeting so-called disinformation is a thinly veiled attempt to maintain control over the flow of information, especially as we approach a crucial election.
In conclusion, Spotify’s move to censor content under the guise of protecting election integrity is a troubling sign of increasing efforts to control the narrative. As seen with previous actions by Big Tech and government agencies, this strategy primarily targets conservative voices and could have far-reaching implications for free speech and democracy.
