Doesn't the act organization itself change it from a "vote with your wallet" (as an independent customer) to propagandizing and promoting your ideas to others on what they should buy?

When it comes to companies working like that, people call it a "cartel".

Also, isn't there a difference between movement organized and advocated "don't buy Spotify" versus group dictated Spotify what to sell?

In the second case Spotify caved because of the pressure/threat, not because the product wasn't selling.

It might still be a market decision (in the sense of it being an economic consideration of Spotify's behalf, as the ultimate threat was to their image and ultimately bottom line) but it wasn't a free market decision as in consumers signalling worth of a product with their purchases or lack thereof.

Like, what exactly is it do you think they are coordinating, other than individually choosing to vote with their wallets for similar reasons?

>It might still be a market decision (in the sense of it being an economic consideration of Spotify's behalf, as the ultimate threat was to their image and ultimately bottom line) but it wasn't a free market decision

What you're describing, making business decisions based on weighing the economic costs of losing customers vs. the economic benefits of keeping the content, is indeed a free market decision. The fact that there are no options that make everybody happy doesn't negate that.