Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.

The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic.

Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.

It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much broader implications for society as a whole.

It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

I do not see the irony.

On principle I get it but who cares, canceling a subscription is such a minute act it’s like getting mad at a third party voter. It’s a quixotic act of protest that outside of an organized mass movement is unlikely to bankrupt Spotify. So perhaps you being so zealous about your stance is, appropriate enough, mirroring that same poster’s beliefs. That you cannot see the irony is telling, indeed.

> businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer.

Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.