Kookoo: I am, but not by the means of consumer activism. This is what really irks me about the whole thing. The power of consumers should not determine what's factual, what's fair, and what's damaging and harming to the society. We're lucky that the majority of people seem to be on the side of factual truth in this particular case, but that's not always going to be the case. Would you be happy if, say, creationists in the US banded together to force Spotify to deplatform the "Science Vs" podcast? The reason that consumer activism is used to influence companies to deplatform podcast hosts, content creators, etc, is the need to fill the void that was left by the regulators. The average citizen has no other formal ways to act, so they're forced to use their consumer power instead. What we see here is the direct result of the abrogation of responsibility by multiple governments around the world. Spotify, Deezer, Youtube, etc, plus all the social platforms, are all broadcasters. The fact they use a different technology doesn't mean they are not. As such they should be regulated by BSA, Ofcom, and their equivalent in every country they are available. Then this whole problem will pretty quickly resolve itself.

So if it was a podcast about gay men and how it is wrong and what should be done them then it would be fine for a Islamic country to allow it?