Spotify Removes ‘Hate Conduct’ Provision From New Content Policy • Page 2

I would say the lost prophets guy made me more sick to my stomach than anyone. But Chris Brown is an absolute piece of human shit too

 

Yes. Editorial playlists are still a source of revenue for Spotify and artists. They'll make a policy to block Chris Brown or R. Kelly, let another controversial artist slip through the cracks (take your pick), and R. Kelly's lawyer drafts a lawsuit for discrimination and loss of revenue and anything else they can think of. Spotify goes to court, maybe gets it tossed (costing money either way) and then loses revenue because they don't promote R. Kelly anyways.

 

That ‘lawsuit’ wouldn’t even make it to court. It’s. Editorial. There. Is. No. Contract. Or. Requirement. To. Be. Included. In. A. Playlist.

 

I didn't see anyone state that was their first concern, but maybe I missed something. I was just trying to open the discussion up a little more past the point of saying, "fuck spotify they are spineless." I agree they are spineless, I think the music industry should try to blacklist complete pieces of garbage. I think everyone here would agree they r trash and should be treated like it. But it's an interesting discussion to dive into who gets blacklisted. SO MANY celebrated artists either accused or known to have committed heinous acts are still celebrated. So where does the line get drawn?

 

Please. Someone sue me for not posting about a band, I would fucking love it.

 

Start with obvious cases and work your way down. Using a slippery slope fallacy just tried to obfuscate what needs to happen now.

 

Doesn't matter, they realized it still obviously costs them money. This is pretty self evident since they're walking back what seems to be a morally just policy.

 

“But capitalism” is, still, a bad (and cowardly) answer.

 

Obvious cases off the top of my head.

Chris Brown
R Kelly
XXXTencion
Beatles
Michael Jackson
Ted Nugent
Cee Lo Green
Dr. Dre
Tupac
basically any rock band 1960-1980
basically any rapper c. 1990s

Good luck persuading anybody to give any of these up, both for how much cash they generate and how potentially litigious any of them could be.

 

"But feelings" is a naive answer. Should I go through your website and find all the references to accused abusers that you promote and expect you to take each article down?

 

I have an editorial policy I follow, they don’t. I’d love for them to adopt mine. Wtf is this “but feelings” shit?

Yes. Spotify should absolutely adopt my personal editorial policy. Let’s start there. They can pay me 1/50 what the CEO makes too, and, uh, I’m not Spotify and have none of the influence they have.

Start somewhere, so something, anything, does not mean anything else beside the simplistic. But sure, I’m totally down with them using my policy — it’d be ten times better than what they’ve done.

 

lol oh you’re the guy that likes *that* Makeout song.

 

Ok I have to say it again? Editorial is not catalog. How do you not get this? Why do you think I’d argue any of those people should be promoted in their editorial playlists? I’ve said it a half dozen times now.

 

I guess I don’t see what’s wrong with not having these people in a playlist. I doubt a Beatles fan is going to lose their shit because they can’t hear a few of their songs on a random playlist. Just listen on your own, you know? It’s not censoring it’s just not giving extra promotion. Spotify fucked up with their initial roll out. They should have gone all in.

 

I was thinking stictly of artists and not bands. But yeah, Ian is definitly barf-inducing. It still shocks me that someone would do the stuff he was convicted for.

 

there are plenty of songs on spotify to make dope playlists filled with artists that dont have charges relating to sexual misconduct and violence... like what the fuck. the fact that spotify is making such a big deal about it is taking spotlight off the artists who work hard and everyone is still talking about the questionable artists.... giving them even more press. let top dawg take the music off spotify.. who tf cares?! taylor swift wasnt on spotify for years... spotify still makes money. and if top dawg really took off their music they would be losing a ton of revenue... high bluff. either way fucking lame that spotify is just trying to please everyone not really sticking to any moral code. it wouldve been better for them to not have said anything at this point.

 

If they would have done it silently without addressing it then it wouldn't have given so many people the chance to play upset. A lot of the people complaining are probably not part of R. Kelly's 3000 fan base anyway.

 

was replying more to the comment the anime person made than yours directly. i won't dispute that understanding where the line gets drawn is difficult to establish, and personally i'm not really looking to get into it (perhaps others in the thread will). i believe that, given the statistics on false accusations indicate they are quite infrequent, a proactive approach to substantive allegations is appropriate.

 

Haven't listened to it since that day. Makeout is actually a great example of your own very inconsistent editorial policy. They have lyrics that you don't like and you vow to remove them from your website, while Brand New has actual allegations against them and you not only post several articles about their specific betrayal like you're a victim, but continue to leave up your glowing review of their new album so that anyone coming across it without knowing the details can still funnel money into their pockets.

lol

 

Oh fuck right off.

 

In my perfect world artists who did terrible things without making reperations or having any accountability get less promotion and less revenue, therefore encouraging labels and promoters to look for decent artists who don't abuse people and it encourages people to do good or genuinely try to change because there are actual consequences if they don't. But naw lets just keep things the same I guess. Even tho I always hear these rumors about artists lives being ruined tho they get promo from spotify and make thousands of dollars sounds super life ruining!!!

 

Is there anywhere with an actual honest discussion on the validity of say, banning artists like R Kelly, XXX, Tekashi, so on, but not John Lennon, Led Zepplin, Bowie, etc.? To me the obvious differences are that artists who've made significant contributions to pop culture are more valid than artists who don't/won't, and the fact that we're only revisiting their transgressions decades after the fact instead of using your (our? anyone's?) platform to speak out and change the rules for what is and isn't acceptable from artists you like.

The idea of removing artists from playlists, or making it harder for them to gain notoriety, IMO isn't about punishing them (where it would make sense to punish all abusers equally) but it's about creating a safer environment that doesn't support abusers, so starting off my addressing artists that have clout currently makes more sense than just targeting all of these classic artists to be "fair".

 

I agree with Spotify's sentiments on their second statement. I think a lot of people forget about their own past transgressions and take for granted (odd word to use I know, can't think of a better one) that most of us aren't famous enough to be unable to sweep those under the rug. I mean, imagine if every employer went back through your tweets and facebook accounts to the beginning of their existence, and if they found something they didn't like, black listed you from that industry instantly. Ie, if you work in construction/accounting, imagine the norm being 'oh hey, 10 years ago you posted this questionable tweet that offended some people, you are now banned from making a living in your chosen profession. Sorry about the tens of thousands you spent in college and the hours of making this your passion, no second chances'. There are obviously things that are heinous and unforgivable (and I think that most people are capable of drawing that line, and that there is an agreeable line), but there are minor transgressions that people can and should be forgiven for, and given the opportunity to learn and change (or have already shown learning and change).

However, I completely disagree with the 1st part and their stance reversal there. They should not be including certain artists in their algorithms that generate unsolicited revenue. If someone wants to type in R Kelly and know that their streaming is going to generate revenue for him, then that's their choice I suppose, but I thought it was great and bold for spotify to not want to be a part of that inactively and force the user to make that decision. They did take the cowards way out by not taking the time to develop a middle ground stance that combines my sentiments from above, and separates the minor from the major transgressions, and the thoughtless comments, from the abusive behavior of past and present.

 

I mean, R Kelly, XXXtentacion and Tay-k have all done stuff that's just a bit worse than tweeting offensive BS.

 

who among us doesn't have the skeleton in our closet of having beat the shit out of women and created a rape cult