Being centrist isn't really an ideology though. Might be easier to understand your political position if you used labels like social liberal, classic liberal, libertarian, conservative, democratic socialist, social democrat, fascist, communist etc.
To me you seem like a classic liberal or libertarian. Labels are of course highly subjective. You can of course call yourself whatever you like. You could call yourself an Apple, but it would be impratical. Preferably one would use labels which makes other people understand your position.
It is kind of a problem when you style yourself as "leader of the free world," but doesn't actually know anything about the world you supposedly lead. American ignorance bring us disasters like Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and Syria.
I don't know Spotify or their troubles, so I cannot comment. I tried to look it up for your benefit, but could not find anything pointing to cultural mismatch.
Speaking about starting positions. The irony of capitalisism fans like yourself is that you all seem to ignore one of the most fundamental aspects of capitalism. The thing that gave capitalism its name: Capital.
It isn't called meritocracy, work-hardism, study-hardism, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstrapsims. Not it is called CAPITALISM because of the outsized role capital plays in this system. In a capitalist system, who makes the most money? The one who works the longest days and sweats the most? The one with the biggest brain? Nope, it is the one with the largest pile of capital.
Doesn't matter how clever you are, if you only got a pen and paper to do calculations. If I have a computer, I can completely outcompete you in calculations, even if I work a fraction of the time you work, and I am half has smart. My capital in the form of a computer wins over your hard work and brains.
The second part of capitalism is free market: supply and demand. You don't get paid by how hard you work, but by how much in demand whatever your make is or your skills. If a computer program was developed that could do the economic work you do tomorrow, then your skills would be worth almost nothing.
Despite no fall in your efforts or your skills your earnings would drop to a stone. Meanwhile as a software developer my skills could end up getting into higher demand and get paid more. Thus I could make a lot more money due to no effort on my part. Due to no increased talent on my part. Only due to changes in supply and demand.
The average Chinese guy works way harder than me, yet makes a fraction of my salary? Why? Because I live in a country with far more capital per inhabitant. With more human capital per inhabitant (more investment in education and training).
Why does a Norwgegian teacher make way more money than a Chinese teacher? Because she is smarter? Works more hours? Nope, because supply and demand for her skills is different. Demand push the value of her teaching skills higher in the Norwegian market.
Your meritocracy is a delusion. We are governed by capital, supply and demand.
