> It sounds like your fourth paragraph is exactly what Auden was disagreeing with. True, but Auden wrote his paragraph in the context of a different informatio

> It sounds like your fourth paragraph is exactly what Auden was disagreeing with. True, but Auden wrote his paragraph in the context of a different information technology environment. Today, say artist X puts out objectionable content Y and harmless content Z. You could argue that consuming Z is all fine and dandy (side-stepping questions of whether financially supporting X is a good idea) because you are not supporting Y. But the giant AI neural net models around us aren't so smart. The more views Y gets, the more it starts suggesting Z to other people. In a world where simply consuming a work also literally boosts its signal and the signals of all other works by that artist, the question of whether a non-offense of work should be shunned takes on a very different character.