10 ms·

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Goo

• moron4hire 9y ago
  It's Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa all over again.
  • melling 9y ago
    It's the 1970's all over again... https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp... We seem to keep forgetting what "Freedom of Speech" means. [Update: Added Chomsky quote] "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
    • celticninja 9y ago
      But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.
      • melling 9y ago
        I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.
        • 24gttghh 9y ago
          Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.
          • melling 9y ago
            "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
            • 24gttghh 9y ago
              I do not believe in free expression to promote/commit violence.
          • splintercell 9y ago
            I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.
            • 24gttghh 9y ago
              I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. I do not believe nazi's or any other group have any right to promote hate and violence against others.
  • CWuestefeld 9y ago
    From the cover of a Zappa album at the time: "WARNING/GUARANTEE: This album contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress. In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Ammendment Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American. As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to keep you docile and ignorant). Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have outgrown the ordinary. The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS. This guarantee is as real as the threats of ther video fundamentalists who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ). If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us."
    • ganoushoreilly 9y ago
      It’s ironic how the political tables have turned.
• Numberwang 9y ago
  Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example. I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either. Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.
  • vixen99 9y ago
    Yes! Richard Wagner was an anti-semite - no argument! He's been described as 'one of the most virulent anti-Semites in modern history as well as being Adolf Hitler’s most revered cultural role-model'. He also happened to be a musical genius. Do we bann performances of the Ring Cycle or Tristan & Isolde?
    • thinkingemote 9y ago
      If I remember correctly in the 90s there was a picket against a performance of Tannhauser in London by artists.
  • tyingq 9y ago
    Intent is difficult to judge as well. The lyrics for the Rolling Stones' Brown Sugar are pretty clearly racist (among other things). It's not clear, however, if it's meant to promote racism. Similar for incenting violence and "Pumped up kicks". Edit: They could also add misogyny to the list and wipe out large swaths of entire music genres :)
  • icebraining 9y ago
    I wonder if they'll ban the Star-Spangled Banner? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-anthem-letter-20150912-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-anthem-letter...
  • renesd 9y ago
    Yes. There are lots of Polish and Swedish Nationalist Socialist bands (aka, Nazi). Fuck them.
• Fifer82 9y ago
  I was pretty embarrassed by it all to be honest. Nothing makes me cringe more than everyone responding ultra PC. It is bad enough with the commoners, but it is a disgrace when companies get involved with PC statements for no other real reason than to favor the brand. I may be the same as you only I was a 90s rap kid, the entire directory of music I have collected since the 00s could be considered violent and hateful.
  • Blackthorn 9y ago
    Google and other companies have long been removing content from, for example, Islamic terrorists. Why is it only a problem now when they are removing content from white people?
    • Fifer82 9y ago
      It isn't alright under any circumstance. Given that my music is 99% black artists and I am white, the race card is ill placed here. I firmly believe that all adults should make their own choices. It is bad enough with government telling you what you can and cannot do, without self proclaimed goody two shoe companies declaring a PC line and imposing additional limits.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• colanderman 9y ago
  If music streaming services should not be free to police their content, what about text hosting services (i.e. forums)? What about record labels, should they be forced to sign acts they find offensive (protected classes aside)? Not arguing one way or the other but "music streaming services" is not too different from many other services which people expect to police content. Perhaps considering whether the company holds a monopoly or near-monopoly on that media gateway is relevant.
  • corobo 9y ago
    They absolutely should be free to police their content. They should be free to police the content, not external pressure. Bear too in mind they are removing content. Before this blew up in the media, did they have a problem hosting the stuff they're now removing?
    • notahacker 9y ago
      The external pressure comes from public outcry. Fewer people paid attention to neo-Nazis a week ago, hence fewer questions about the stuff they hosted. I'm not convinced there's an argument that the right of a political cause to have its music distributed by a particular company trumps the right of a company not to distribute it or the right of the public to pressure the company into not distributing it. If one is to impose upon on the freedom of actions of media distributors or the potentially-boycotting public (I'm not sure the latter is even possible), there had better be something pretty amazingly special about the cause that means their right to be heard trumps others' rights not to be the amplifier. I'm not sure any remotely compelling argument exists for neo-Naziism being a cause deserving of such special privileges or music distribution services being the sort of thing one should have an inalienable right to.
  • OscarCunningham 9y ago
    I'd say that streaming services should be legally free to police their content, but that they shouldn't police their content. Just as I think that songs should be legally free to espouse racism, but that they shouldn't espouse racism.
• marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an eye at that disappearing. Violence and hatred though? You've got this all backwards. We should be most concerned about censorship of political beliefs, however wrongheaded they are.
  • scrollaway 9y ago
    How can you call racism a political belief?
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • abiox 9y ago
      Sometimes it seems as if there are as many definitions of 'racism' as there are people discussing it. 'Race nationalism' is certainly political. I suspect most people would associate that with 'racism' in at least some way.
    • kingmanaz 9y ago
      I don't know. Racism certainly helped Zionists build the state of Israel. Perhaps more people should be racist so they can found and enjoy their own private Zion.
    • stabatmater 9y ago
      No, but it's closely upstream of certain political beliefs and the Left has attacked our ability to talk sensibly about these issues by conflating the two. I assume that you will agree that racism has two common definitions[1]: 1. a belief about facts: that there are distinct human subspecies that differ biologically from each other in various ways 2. a description of behaviour: favouring one human subspecies over another in certain matters An example of the first kind would be the observation that Kenyans, particularly from the Nandi subtribe of the Kalenjin tribe seem to outperform every other ethnic group on distance-running, and the hypothesis that "favorable somatotype" (i.e. an innate biological characteristic of this group) may be contributing to this. An example of the second kind would be the factual observation that (at least in the US), increased ethnic neighbourhood diversity is correlated with decreased with lower trust in others and lower neighbourhood social cohesion[4]. Another example would be the theoretical observation (based on agent-based modeling) that diversity and a sense of community are incompatible community properties[5]. Now the point I want to make is that while racism as defined above (either a statement of fact, or a description of human racial preferences) is not in itself a political belief, it can very certainly form, contribute to, or be the basis of certain political beliefs. As I hinted at with the start of this comment, I think your statement is a symptom of broader confusion on the Left about racism caused by lack of clear definitions and eagerness to overuse "racist" as a slur and as a catch-all for people or ideas they don't agree with[9]. Here's a list of mistakes that many on the Left make and that combine to make it really hard to address these issues clearly and without hysteria. Hopefully it will help clear up some confusion and provide opportunity for some exchange of thoughts: 1. Conflating the two definitions given here. For example, by assuming that those who think there are biological differences between certain human subspecies (first definition) also think discrimination based on these group characteristics (second definition) is okay. 2. Conflating beliefs about biological differences (first definition) between human subspecies with beliefs about the supremacy or inferiority of certain human subspecies. That's why the terms "racism" and "white supremacy" are often seen to be used almost interchangeably. 3. Conflating favouring one human subspecies over another (second defition) with the supremacy of one's own subspecies. For example, Enoch Powell opposed mass immigration to Britain, but also regarded "many of the peoples of India as being superior in many respects [...] to Europeans."[6] 4. Believing that whoever opposes or is skeptical about multiracial/multiethnic societies is doing so on racist grounds (as defined above, so either because he believes certain human subspecies are less well adapted to life in some society, or because he believes people have a natural preference for more or less monoethnic societies and that it therefore makes pragmatic political sense to favour monoethic societies). For example, someone may oppose it because he values and wishes to maintain human racial diversity and believes (not unreasonably so[8]) that multiethnic societies are eroding racial diversity. 5. Believing that opposition to multiculturalism is racist. This is self-explanatory and should be obvious regardless of whether you oppose or support multicultural or multiethnic societies. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism [2] Tucker, Ross, Vincent O. Onywera, and Jordan Santos-Concejero. “Analysis of the Kenyan Distance-Running Phenomenon.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 10, no. 3 (April 1, 2015): 285–91. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0247. [3] Larsen, Henrik B. “Kenyan Dominance in Distance Running.” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 136, no. 1 (September 2003): 161–70. doi:10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00227-7. [4] Putnam, Robert D. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30, no. 2 (2007): 137–174. [5] Neal, Zachary P., and Jennifer Watling Neal. “The (In)Compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community.” American Journal of Community Psychology 53, no. 1–2 (November 6, 2013): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9608-0. [6] "What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans."[7] [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech#Political https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech#Politic... [8] https://mic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-and-it-s-beautiful https://mic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-determine... [9] For example, it is not uncommon to hear that "racism is prejudice plus power"[10]. That's a great definition if you want a stick to beat people with, but so broad and vague as to be rendered pretty much useless on critical examination. For example, there may be plenty of prejudice against pedophiles. And it is certainly common for societies to use their collective power (through state force or collective action) to mobilize power against pedophiles. Does that make pedophiles victim of racist discrimination? Of course not, but it sure is included in this broadened definition of racism. [10] http://edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/racism.html http://edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/racism.html
• YCode 9y ago
  I'm not sure this kind of policy even has whatever the intended effect is, seems how it appears to be a reaction to Charlottesville events. Take "music that incites racism" (what do you put into Pandora to get that genre?) for example. If you have users listening to it (because before Charlottesville you thought it was okay!) and you remove it telling them their music is basically banned aren't those users just going to listen to it someplace else and feel more empowered by its message? The more persecuted these groups feel online, the more justified they will feel in their real-world actions.
  • averagewall 9y ago
    Absolutely. Neo Nazis have been a fringe group for decades and never caused much trouble. Now I actually feel some affinity to them because I see them as an underdog being beaten down. That's how you get supporters - get oppressed. In fact that's how the original Nazi movement started in the first place - a vent to Germans' frustrations at being oppressed by the winners of WWI.
    • ganoushoreilly 9y ago
      What’s also interesting is the media’s concerns with “how could these group of white males form these groups, what would motivate them to do it?” Totally miss the point that the same social-economic stressors and cultural resentment are what lead to the growth of gangs And radicalism terrorist groups. I would love to see everyone stand up and deplore gang violence with the same aggressiveness considering people are dying in cities daily.
    • throwawaymanbot 9y ago
      So you cant discipline your emotions knowing that what you are feeling sympathy for is nazi doctrine?...wow!
• jawbone3 9y ago
  Facilitating the organisation of neo nazis is likewise dangerous, to the point that people die regularly. That is the other, just as real danger, that you are trading the dangers of censoring eminem with. There is also the fact that all these companies already have arbitrary censorship in place, so this isn't an argument about the principles: that one is long lost. This is an argument about the existing excemption racism has.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    Yeah, I'm sure that if they can't use Spotify, Neo-Nazis will have no place to organize. /s
• koolba 9y ago
  > While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that's a different topic).
  • peternicky 9y ago
    Reminds me of RIGB (Silicon Valley)
  • corobo 9y ago
    Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.
    • tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
      Well, when we're at a place where asking where someone is from is considered an example of white supremacy, then it seems we need to couch everything we say with strained deference to social justice. Those are the times we're in, and I blame the left for its obsessive dismantling of our language.
      • corobo 9y ago
        See here's a great example of why I prefaced my message. Sorry but I'm lacking in either English language skills or politics but I haven't got a clue what you're saying. I'm ill-equipped to respond to this sort of reply. I'm not even sure what side of the fence you're debating for here. Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for the fallout to end.
        • apetresc 9y ago
• nv-vn 9y ago
  RIP Tyler the Creator :(
• nulagrithom 9y ago
  Wow, I almost missed that part of the article. There's so much music that could fall under that rule... Music is up to interpretation. One of my favorite songs is Sublime's April 29th, 1992. You could easily say it incites violence, glorifies looting and rioting, and should be removed. But my interpretation of the song makes me think it's more about understanding the mindset of the people who were looting and rioting, and not condoning the violence. How could anyone impartially decide what should and shouldn't be published?
• marcosdumay 9y ago
  Wow. That production story would be the best Shouth Park plot ever. It's complete, with even nobody caring about the censorship and talking about how they criticize Family Guy.
• Tylerosaurus 9y ago
  I believe "music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Is defined as: any music that makes a lot of people upset on any given day, esp. when it is trending on Facebook or Twitter.
• ChrisBland 9y ago
  Exactly, so do we expect that Google / Spotify will remove Chief Keef's "Bang Bang"? Lyrics for example: https://genius.com/Chief-keef-bang-bang-lyrics https://genius.com/Chief-keef-bang-bang-lyrics -- If we don't remove that for "music that incites violence" then its a scary double standard we are building and we are now at the whim of the "PC Thought Police" I couldn't agree with you more about the Cartoon Wars episode; either it is all fair game or none of it is. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
• odiroot 9y ago
  I agree with that. By the same token they would need to remove all the content that promotes communism in multiple countries. In my country it's illegal as is the case with nazism. I don't hold much hope Google, Spotify etc. would actually walk that road.
  • colordrops 9y ago
    In what country is communism illegal?
    • eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      Most of Eastern Europe. Suffering under totalitarian regimes tends to do that.
    • Grue3 9y ago
      Baltic states, for example. Maybe Ukraine now as well.
    • tionerezultas 9y ago
      It is apparently most illegal in Indonesia, where there are strongly-enforced laws. In the United States, it seems the Communist Party might be technically banned (although it exists): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 Poland seems to ban "promotion of .. communist .. ideology", and Romania seems to ban "totalitarian .. actions of a communist .. nature". Countries that seem to ban communist symbols include Ukraine, Lithuania, and Latvia. Countries that previously passed similar laws include Moldova, Czechoslovakia (1991), Poland, and Hungary. Apparently, some countries like Albania, Czechia, Germany, Italy, and Slovakia ban "totalitarian ideology". There are probably more bans worldwide.
    • odiroot 9y ago
      Poland, I'd guess most other Warsaw-pact countries as well.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• stillkicking 9y ago
  It's quite simple. Eminem is white and male, that means he's a hateful misogynist and homophobe. Azealia Banks is black and female, that means she's empowered by rapping about cunts, bitches and catching a nigga's warm goo in your do-rag. Thanks to progressivism we can finally judge people by the content of their character. (/s, Let's face it, everyone can see this is politically motivated and the demand for empathy and charity only ever goes one way. Apparently it's ok to set cars on fire and smash people's heads in for political reasons, just as long as you loudly explain that you're _against_ fascism and nazis while doing so.)
  • throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    I saw plenty of evidence that Nazis are doing the same in charlotesville and else where. There was an old Nazi by the name of Tubbs, who was actively directing skirmishes. <30 seconds of googling can help you factually on this.
  • rounce 9y ago
    I think it's safe to say everyone knows Azealia Banks is a tool.
  • intended 9y ago
    GOD no! It's worse! You Americans are now dealing with the fall out from the consolidation of vote banks and the Fox News effect. Decades ago, when Fox News was created I watched shocked as the first assaults - the first "alternate view points" on normal events were initiated. Soon you saw assaults on climate change. I thought "oh, science will win." But no! Fox News cultivated cranks, gave them a platform, and after building it up, for scientists to come on their shows. Scientists had studiously avoided talking to cranks - it would have given them more space and then credibility. But with Fox News behind them? And it's audience which was much larger than anyone else's? Climate denial became a force in its own right. Anyway - those scientists went ahead to debate on Fox News. Except it was never a debate. It was spectacle in the old roman sense. There was no debate, just derision. And that was the first time I was truly worried for reason and logic itself. And then America gave birth to creationism. I couldn't believe it. American market dynamics found a way, to convince millions that evolution was a debated topic. Imagine that!! People are debating whether evolution occurs! Anyway, once the net came, even Fox News was found wanting. Those techniques could be reapplied and enhanced - and you got breitbart and the rest. And now America has president trump, who just made up stuff about permits, and then brought up the concept of the alt left. It's so unfortunate that the only thing left to do is despair.
• Glyptodon 9y ago
  I can't wait 'till other entities hold this incident over said companies' heads when trying to black hole whatever random content that some group, nation, or entity doesn't like (cough cough China).
• arkh 9y ago
  The French anthem would be removed with those rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise#Lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise#Lyrics
• thanatropism 9y ago
  If some people had their say, Islam would be banned as a whole based on an anti-hatred policy.
• Pxtl 9y ago
  I'd hate to live in a world where Pink Floyd's "In The Flesh" wasn't allowed on Google Play Music.
• BartSaM 9y ago
  Cool, so they have a neo-nazi stance. This is the anti extreme-right stance. Will we see stance anti extreme-left as well? Antifa etc? We need a real balance, otherwise, we are pushing the world towards the war.
• iuguy 9y ago
  It's not just hatred that we have to worry about. It's any view that's considered abhorrent today. Not so long ago, less than 50 years ago, there was little to no distinction between LGBTQ people and paedophiles. They were one and the same (look up the term nonce, British slang used against both LGBTQ people and sex offenders for one example, or the case of Alan Turing for another). Some very brave people fought against the perceived wisdom of the majority, even when through association alone they would be considered to be paedophile supporters themselves. These rights for LGBTQ people are still being fought around the world today. People died over this fight. People are still dying over this fight. I understand the desire to limit hurtful speech, but in doing so we hand over the power to set limits to an arbiter. An arbiter who may feel that today's moral majority view outweighs that of others. What you feel today about people of colour, about LGBTQ people, others may feel about animal rights, human genetic engineering and AI rights in the future amongst others. If you limit the boundaries of free expression it is no longer free. You are taking those rights away from those seeking to fight injustice in the future. It's not hard to hate Nazis. It's harder to see the consequences of our actions through the red mist. The British Government has the official position that censoring the Internet is something that must be done. Even the EU is starting to think this could be a good thing. If you think this stops with Naziism, then you're wrong. If you think this won't come to America, you're wrong.
• KAdot 9y ago
  All these things remind me the old days when the Soviet government had a list of "not recommended" music bands. E.g. Black Sabbath - violence, religious obscurantism; Kiss - neofascism, punk, violence; Scorpions - violence, etc. Here is a full list translated to English http://i.imgur.com/Aj9wYpN.gif http://i.imgur.com/Aj9wYpN.gif