Up until a couple years ago one could have said something similar about Howard Stern, but he has come out with some vicious anti-anti-mandater rhetoric lately. People change, and not always for the better.
Your angle seems to be that the dispute with Spotify is some kind of establishment hoax. If so, why would the establishment have waited until now to sideline him? And is putzing around with Spotify the most effective way for them to achieve that goal?
I don't know the full story, but I like Neil a lot and have deep respect for his views on the environment and the establishment. He's not a science guy, he's a nature guy. People are at different levels of understanding about what's going on with COVID, which was the issue. Maybe Neil has changed, but that doesn't usually happen when you're older or when you aren't offered some kind of honey-pot to change your views. Neil isn't getting rich off this. He's more concerned about the quality of Spotify as far as his music productions go. He broke his contract with Warner by leaving Spotify. That's a money loss for him. He does what he does based on what he believes is true. He's no Howard Stern.
(post is archived)