This article has been imported from chorus.fm for discussion. All of the forum rules still apply. Dan Rys, writing at Billboard: Three weeks after Spotify announced a new policy regarding hate content and hateful conduct on its service, the company is walking back one of its most controversial provisions. In a blog post published today (June 1), the company said it was moving away from its “hateful conduct” provision, which had led to the service removing the music of R. Kelly, XXXTentacion and Tay-K from its editorial and algorithmic owned and operated playlists. Cowards. “We created concern that an allegation might affect artists’ chances of landing on a Spotify playlist and negatively impact their future,” the post reads. “Some artists even worried that mistakes made in their youth would be used against them. That’s not what Spotify is about.” Not what Spotify is about? Hm, well, maybe it should be. Expand - View Original
Spotify repealing this policy is worse than just simply never doing anything in the first place... It sends the complete wrong message. Why is it so hard to do the right thing? (Answer: Money)
I don't like the fact that artists who are awful human beings get extra promotion, but where does the line get drawn defining who gets blacklisted? I mean it is a pretty subjective concept. What about all the rock legends that committed statutory rape in the 60s and 70s or had sex with underage girls? Do we say goodbye to Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, etc.? What about Afro Man for punching that girl on stage? Does that mean Queens of the Stone Age gets blacklisted too for that camera incident? I would really like to understand WHY they rolled back their new policy and how they had defined who would be blacklisted.
Will make me highly consider leaving Spotify after being a paid user for years. Are there any of the other services who are implementing good "hate conduct" policies and sticking to them?
Most of your post is a tough question to answer, but it's pretty clear they did it because artists and labels complained because they feared they could lose their songs from playlists in the future.
Totally, I’m curious as to the extent. Like were they threatened with lawsuits? The decision like almost all decisions in a capitalist society was $ driven, so what was the biggest $ factor that led to the reverse? Totally boneheaded on Spotify’s part. I agree with whoever said this is worse than if they did nothing in the first place.
For music, not that I know of. I know Apple doesn't allow "hate-filled" apps in their App Store but R.Kelly is still on Apple Music.
I love this post, but you might get crap for it because you aren’t Insta-condemning and conforming to PC culture. Things should be handled on a case by case matter. R.Kelly is scum, that’s true, but blacklisting everyone that has any sort of allegation against them is a bad move. If they are proven to have done a heinous act then yes blacklist them, but otherwise a conversation needs to be had. Straight up condemning is not the way to go and I know that isn’t a popular opinion in todays American society but it’s at least a place to start.
i'll make an addendum so i'm not just snarking. look. very few people are calling for the blacklisting of folks solely with allegations against them. r kelly and xxx are not such people. they are well documented, brazen, public pieces of shit. let's fucking start by holding them A TINY BIT accountable by LIMITING the huge and profitable platform and implicit endorsement they receive with playlist status, and then modify. this was never going to be, spotify is banning artists cause someone on twitter said "he looked at me a little creepy." to posture that that is what this was is patently disingenuous, and i'm not inclined to think you really care about holding those folks accountable if your first concern is an unrealistic and unrealized "witch hunt."
Incredibly difficult policy to implement and opens up a shit ton of lawsuit potential. Additionally, if other streaming services don't take the same stand against the same people then it just means lost revenue for Spotify rather than hurting the artists they targeted as people migrate to services that do offer other people. R. Kelly is a piece of shit (among the many others) but from a corporate standpoint this is completely unfeasible.
The other platforms, afaik, still ban both artists from editorial ... so, this “but capitalism” argument doesn’t work very well. And no one was banned from being on the platform. No one.
A lot of blame should be thrown towards Top Dawg who, apparently, threatened to remove Kendrick, SZA and others from Spotify.
The "but capitalism" works perfectly fine. John Lennon was a notorious asshole and abuser but you won't see Spotify cast aside the Beatles because everyone would just migrate to Apple and they'd rake in the cash. Does it take a conviction to be removed? What if a sound engineer later convicted of pedophilia worked on an album of an otherwise clean artist? What if one person was involved in something awful (As I Lay Dying, Lostprophets) but the other members were innocent? What if an accusation that wasn't confirmed caused a band to get removed and they sued for a loss of revenue when other bands with accusations were left on? Who gets a pass and who doesn't and how does Spotify protect itself when an issue inevitable slip through the cracks? It's a legal quagmire and as admirable as it is it's completely untenable. I think a "potential abuser" (for example lostprophets artist bio has absolutely no mention of Ian Watkins conviction) or some sort of label on an artist's profile page would be acceptable but otherwise the world of music and the people involved in it is too vast to make a legal policy on it. If you think a corporation is going to capitulate to "but feelings" then you're a fool. Either every streaming service takes the same stance against the same people or you let consumers make their own choices, for better or worse, and hope to educate in other areas.
One more time: if it affects anyone's bottom line someone will raise a fit about it that will only cost Spotify money.