As much as I would like to agree with parts of your argument, I find it difficult. Maybe because I grew up in Germany and near the Iron Curtain to be more preci

As much as I would like to agree with parts of your argument, I find it difficult. Maybe because I grew up in Germany and near the Iron Curtain to be more precise. There is an alternative, as a company can either be organized around values like money, shareholder value, opportunism or values like still making money but not at all costs. Acting based on humanistic values. This is a spectrum. And lots of grey between black and white. One could look to be one thing and behind the scenes actively act contrarian to this outside facade. Take many examples of people or companies in oppressive regimes that use their influence to protect others. For example out of personal interest I studied a lot of stories of people in the ranks of the NS regime (2nd World War) that did use their role to secure people being hunted by the state's ideology and others within the NS ranks. As well as many normal people. People like from average Else up to government officials. What I am incoherently rambling about is the fact that one can't always see the details from the outside while things unfold. These people would have been seen as part of the system. Not as actively working against it. Because if the later they would not have been able to work against the system. On the other hand there were a lot of opportunistic people as well. That would have looked a lot like the other category of people described. Maybe Spotify is just opportunistic. Maybe there is a hidden positive agenda. We don't yet know. So I would not try to have a definitive answer in my head.