3 ms·

Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. This article i

by mef79 6y ago

Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company, it's about workers raising an issue with the company leadership and expecting an appropriate response (which does not necessarily mean removing content) The article is pretty sensationalized - it does not explicitly cite what the employees were looking for or what the leadership was willing to do. We've got the content of two employees' questions, a comment from the CEO that doesn't seem to be a response to either of them, a canned response from a comms person after the fact, and a rehash of Rogan's latest controversies.

joegahona 6y ago
> Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. They are. Ek: "The fact that we aren't changing our position doesn't mean we aren't listening. It just means we made a different judgment call."
spacehome 6y ago
The employees should do their jobs or resign. Accepting employment doesn’t give them veto power over someone else’s platform.
justapassenger 6y ago
> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run Should they listen to all employees, about every single issue? What if only 1% if employees ask for it? Or 10%? Where’s the line? > This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company I don’t work at Spotify but worked enough at big companies to disagree with that. Behavior of employees inside trendy tech companies is very much like angry Twitter mob.
dingaling 6y ago
> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. Only if those employees are presenting objective arguments e.g. "adding this podcast may lead to customers cancelling their subscriptions, or to legislation being applied". If it's a case of "I don't like it" then the company doesn't have any obligation to listen.

by mef79 6y ago

joegahona 6y ago

> Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. They are. Ek: "The fact that we aren't changing our position doesn't mean we aren't listening. It just means we made a different judgment call."

spacehome 6y ago

The employees should do their jobs or resign. Accepting employment doesn’t give them veto power over someone else’s platform.

justapassenger 6y ago

> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run Should they listen to all employees, about every single issue? What if only 1% if employees ask for it? Or 10%? Where’s the line? > This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company I don’t work at Spotify but worked enough at big companies to disagree with that. Behavior of employees inside trendy tech companies is very much like angry Twitter mob.

dingaling 6y ago

> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. Only if those employees are presenting objective arguments e.g. "adding this podcast may lead to customers cancelling their subscriptions, or to legislation being applied". If it's a case of "I don't like it" then the company doesn't have any obligation to listen.