Even the idea is asinine. It's an abdication of personal responsibility for the choices made by your own company. You're not refusing to make a choice; you're making a choice to platform people like Rogan, you just don't want to take responsibility for having made that choice.
Agents like Spotify are not innocent doe-eyed bystanders caught up by accident in all this. They made a choice, to platform and permit content like Rogan's, as long as it made them money. And when people pointed out this is shitty and demonstrates that they'll pal up with extremists for cash, they get upset that we've caught them at the game, because they know it's awful, so they put on this fake facade of "neutrality" to try and disavow any responsibility.
You know, the same way Swiss banks were perfectly willing to do business with Nazis, storing stolen Jewish art and wealth, and keeping quiet about their part knowing that their by-laws allow them to personally seize the contents of those vaults after a period of time they go untouched (which is rapidly approaching if not starting to pass; I think it was 80 or 100 years?) They took Nazi money, to hide Nazi wealth, and in the aftermath they played dumb about it, so they could profit off those atrocities personally.
Same bullshit argument that Spotify's trying to make (though Rogan's not the Holocaust, so there's a matter of degree here too).
I know you get into similar points later in your post, but I find the whole line of non-argument offensive.