10 ms·

Spotify Removes R. Kelly from playlists - part of Hate Content & Conduct Policy

13 points by uptown 9y ago

seanf 9y ago
Taking on a hate content policy will be a big task. So much music, while being dramatic and theatrical, is open to a lot of interpretation as to whether it is truly hateful or just expressing a point of view in an over-the-top way. A song might honestly express strong emotion, in a questionably hateful way. For example, will "Hit 'Em Up" by Tupac be removed?(https://open.spotify.com/track/0Z2J91b2iTGLVTZC4fKgxf https://open.spotify.com/track/0Z2J91b2iTGLVTZC4fKgxf) The song calls for violence and murder of other people and their kids. Tupac, Biggie, and others around them were literally murdered because of their music, or associations related to their music careers. How can you argue a lot of their music isn't hateful? Should no one be listening to this music, is it wrong to listen to it? It is Spotify's choice to host the kind of music they want, but this will be a difficult policy to enforce equally if that is at all a goal.
- namlem 9y ago
  First of all, they're not removing the content, it's still available from the artist's page. Second, it seems to be based upon the conduct of the artist more than the content of the songs themselves.
  - seanf 9y ago
    In the R. Kelly case, that is true. I clicked into the linked policy and read that before reading the rest of the article. Spotify says, "That’s why we do not permit hate content on Spotify, and remove it whenever we find it." The policy is aimed just as much at content as it is at artists. Edit: This is the policy https://artists.spotify.com/faq/policies#hate-content-and-hateful-conduct https://artists.spotify.com/faq/policies#hate-content-and-ha...
slededit 9y ago
Early 90s rap music horrified America, and you can understand why if you actually listen to the lyrics. However it also gave voice to the marginalized. None of this is why it got played on the radio though. It got played because it sold. It will be interesting to see if Spotify reacts this way when an artist in their prime slips up.
LocalH 9y ago
This need for service providers to be content police is troubling. On its own, this isn’t too egregious. After all, the music is still there, Spotify is only adjusting their algorithms. However, it’s indicative of a greater trend of service providers becoming moral gatekeepers. We see people across the political spectrum (but mostly closer to the ends) trying to prevent speech and content creation in an overtly authoritarian manner. Even if we ignore that, there’s also the issue of the potential to bury someone’s artistic work over their personal behavior. Some people choose not to separate an artist from their work in that way, and that’s fine on a personal level. But if that affects the ability for others to acquire that work, then I have a problem with it. Some of this may be close to a slippery slope argument. However, I contend that we’re already on that slope and moving somewhat quickly.
runnr_az 9y ago
No more "Remix to Ignition?" How am I gonna get it on?

13 points by uptown 9y ago

Taking on a hate content policy will be a big task. So much music, while being dramatic and theatrical, is open to a lot of interpretation as to whether it is truly hateful or just expressing a point of view in an over-the-top way. A song might honestly express strong emotion, in a questionably hateful way. For example, will "Hit 'Em Up" by Tupac be removed?(https://open.spotify.com/track/0Z2J91b2iTGLVTZC4fKgxf https://open.spotify.com/track/0Z2J91b2iTGLVTZC4fKgxf) The song calls for violence and murder of other people and their kids. Tupac, Biggie, and others around them were literally murdered because of their music, or associations related to their music careers. How can you argue a lot of their music isn't hateful? Should no one be listening to this music, is it wrong to listen to it? It is Spotify's choice to host the kind of music they want, but this will be a difficult policy to enforce equally if that is at all a goal.

namlem 9y ago
First of all, they're not removing the content, it's still available from the artist's page. Second, it seems to be based upon the conduct of the artist more than the content of the songs themselves.
- seanf 9y ago
  In the R. Kelly case, that is true. I clicked into the linked policy and read that before reading the rest of the article. Spotify says, "That’s why we do not permit hate content on Spotify, and remove it whenever we find it." The policy is aimed just as much at content as it is at artists. Edit: This is the policy https://artists.spotify.com/faq/policies#hate-content-and-hateful-conduct https://artists.spotify.com/faq/policies#hate-content-and-ha...

slededit 9y ago

Early 90s rap music horrified America, and you can understand why if you actually listen to the lyrics. However it also gave voice to the marginalized. None of this is why it got played on the radio though. It got played because it sold. It will be interesting to see if Spotify reacts this way when an artist in their prime slips up.

LocalH 9y ago

This need for service providers to be content police is troubling. On its own, this isn’t too egregious. After all, the music is still there, Spotify is only adjusting their algorithms. However, it’s indicative of a greater trend of service providers becoming moral gatekeepers. We see people across the political spectrum (but mostly closer to the ends) trying to prevent speech and content creation in an overtly authoritarian manner. Even if we ignore that, there’s also the issue of the potential to bury someone’s artistic work over their personal behavior. Some people choose not to separate an artist from their work in that way, and that’s fine on a personal level. But if that affects the ability for others to acquire that work, then I have a problem with it. Some of this may be close to a slippery slope argument. However, I contend that we’re already on that slope and moving somewhat quickly.

runnr_az 9y ago

No more "Remix to Ignition?" How am I gonna get it on?