6
votes
Spotify partners with the Southern Poverty Law Center to purge 'hate content' from its music - A well-intentioned new policy threatens the violent, angry music we know and love
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Christian Britschgi
- Published
- May 14 2018
- Word count
- 1130 words
I think it's a good move to drop hateful stuff from their curated playlists and the like, but I'm not entirely sure how well the general "no hate content" rule will work in practice. For example, what will they do about the classic folk punk ditty "Fuck White People" by AJJ?
I do appreciate that they've stated an intention to look at the entire context, though. That's what matters most in art.
Yeah, and the fact that they removed all of R. Kelly and XXXTentacian's music as their first examples of this policy in action worries me. Both are gross individuals but their music was anything but "hateful" which clearly shows they are not separating art from artist with this policy.
So, are they going to remove Jerry Lee Lewis' music for him being a pedophile like R. Kelly, too? His third wife was 13 when they got married and he was 22. What about Chuck Berry who got caught with a 13 year old prostitute? Etc. etc. etc.
Are they going to remove the Sex Pistols music since Sid Vicious straight up murdered his girlfriend? What about the black metal band Emperor, since their drummer committed a vicious hate crime by stabbing a gay man to death who propositioned him for sex in a park? Etc. etc. etc.
No matter where they draw the line with this, they are going to come off hypocritical now. And that's not even getting into the music itself which is even more of a minefield.
The linked article doesn't really make this clear — Spotify has not removed either artist's music from the Spotify platform, only from their curated and generated playlists.
I expect that will be the case for most content flagged under this policy. Outright removal will probably be reserved for flagrant violations, such as calling for the genocide of some race.
I agree with Spotify from a moral standpoint. I don't like to see web services used as a platform for hate and shitty behavior, and I think it's good that they're taking steps to curtail the influence of really horrible people like R. Kelly. That said, anything that attempts to apply a concrete policy to something as continually subjective as art is bound to fall into muddied debates over what is and isn't protected by being 'art', and I don't expect that Spotify will be the one to find the way to do it.
Ah, okay. Well that quells my fears a little, at least... but not really. If all they are doing is removing these artists' content from their curated lists that is understandable so long as the music itself is still available. Although removing them from their auto-generated playlists still bothers me a bit. Let's hope they don't cross the line into full on removal of works from artists who they do not like the stance of but whose music isn't hateful itself.
And yeah, I also agree in principal with removing actual hateful music when it's clear cut and indefensible (e.g. Johnny Rebel - Coon Town), but rarely is it so and many songs and artists straddle that line through use of satire, criticism through example and biting social commentary (e.g. Joyner Lucas - I'm Not Racist).
There has always been a raging background debate when it comes to whether you're able to separate the artist from the art. I've usually fallen on the side of "mostly." The context that created the art, as well as the intended message behind it, matters, but not every fact of an artist's life plays into the meaning of the art.
It doesn't always matter that Vincent van Gogh was a bit of a nutter to appreciate his art (sometimes it helps). It doesn't always matter that Kayne's a bit of a tool to appreciate some of his earlier tracks. It does always matter that The Oasis ever existed, because to play any Oasis song is technically hate speech against music. Other than that though, we're being able to make our own decisions about whether to listen to an artist's work in light of their personal failings. As long as it isn't explicit in the work itself, it's probably something best left up to the listener.
Maybe Spotify should focus on turning a profit for once before they go eroding part of their revenue stream. I don’t think abusive content is nearly as identifiable in music (or any art form) as it is social media platforms.
Who needs revenue streams when you can attract more venture capital?
It's all about VALUE.
I've no problem with trying to nip hateful content or content generated by people that they don't want to pay royalties to have available in the bud. I get that they're not currently removing artists, but that's where the conversation naturally goes with this.
But of course, by going after well-known, currently topical artists, it's clear that this is done for the press rather than a commitment to cleaning up their platform. Which, you know, whatever. I wouldn't expect any differently. This is an acceptable step, I guess.
That policy is almost comical in context of the never ending upwards popularity trend of gangsta rap. Like, they just banning all the rap music?
Gangsta rap has been out of favour for a long time now. Mumble rap and trap are the current subgenres du jour. And then the most acclaimed rapper of today is famed for his anti-gang messaging.
Oh, I figured my genre knowledge was out of date but the amount of purposefully offensive shit you hear when casually browsing rap music is still staggering to me and it feels to me like it's everywhere.