Why is it unethical? Again, the alternative here is that both Young and Mitchell are forced to maintain an association with Spotify against their will, or chang

Why is it unethical? Again, the alternative here is that both Young and Mitchell are forced to maintain an association with Spotify against their will, or change their opinion on Rogan (an opinion which many people share and hold to be correct, regardless of whether they believe Rogan should be able to express himself and allow his guests to express themselves in the way he does - and many also do believe he should). Do you consider any of these things to be more just outcomes? No one is being forced to do anything here, there are just two people laying out the conditions under which they continue their relationship with a third party. Neither Young nor Mitchell have actually made any demands here, they have simply stated that they will not continue their relationship with Spotify while they maintain their present relationship with Joe Rogan. Many things can give here - Spotify could drop Rogan, or detail the conditions under which they maintain their relationship, or nothing might happen and Rogan stays on Spotify while Young and Mitchell do not. I don’t know or care about the law here, unless someone starts getting litigious then it’s really all naval gazing nonsense - like you said, you are not a lawyer, so I’m not going to entertain your theories on how this might be illegal. This is purely a matter of values - I value freedom of speech, and I also value people being able to freely associate with who they like, and that includes saying to someone that they will not associate with them while they maintain an association with someone else.