Two years before the current indie-led boycotts, two of music’s most revered figures, Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, made a principled stand against Spotify that added a unique and deeply personal dimension to the protest movement. As polio survivors from the 1950s, their decision to leave the platform over its exclusive deal with anti-vaccine podcaster Joe Rogan was not just a political statement, but a defense of public health rooted in lived experience.
Their protest brought a different kind of scrutiny to Spotify. While most artist complaints had focused on financial or artistic issues, Young and Mitchell targeted the platform’s role as a media publisher and its responsibility for the content it promotes. They argued that by funding and distributing misinformation that could harm public health, Spotify was “spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death.”
This action highlighted Spotify’s evolving identity. It was no longer just a music library but a major player in the podcasting and media landscape, with all the editorial responsibilities that entails. Young and Mitchell forced a conversation about corporate accountability, questioning whether a platform could profit from harmful content without being complicit in its effects.
Although both artists eventually returned to Spotify, their two-year absence left a lasting mark. It legitimized the act of boycotting the platform on ethical grounds, expanding the scope of protest beyond just artist compensation. Their stature as cultural icons brought mainstream attention to the idea that there were valid reasons to leave Spotify that had nothing to do with royalties.
The legacy of their stand can be seen in the current movement, which also combines financial and ethical arguments. The protest against Daniel Ek’s military AI investment is a direct descendant of Young and Mitchell’s protest against Joe Rogan. They demonstrated that for many artists, the principles they stand for are just as important as the royalties they earn.
40