5 ms·

Spotify’s Platform Rules and Approach to Covid-19

33 points by TigeriusKirk 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tpmx 5y ago
> Today we are publishing our long-standing Platform Rules https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rules/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rul...
- gs17 5y ago
  The relevant section: >Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health includes, but may not be limited to: >asserting that AIDS, COVID-19, cancer or other serious life threatening diseases are a hoax or not real >encouraging the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases >promoting or suggesting that vaccines approved by local health authorities are designed to cause death >encouraging people to purposely get infected with COVID-19 in order to build immunity to it (e.g. promoting or hosting “coronavirus parties”)
  - friendlydog 5y ago
    It doesn't mention vaccines as sterilizing vectors as being prohibited so he could talk about this with impunity: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12346214/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12346214/
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > encouraging the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases Imagine you told someone from 2010 that this would be an internet rule at some point... He maybe would have advised you to drink to bleach to clean your head.
boulos 5y ago
The text of "What happens to rule breakers" from the rules: > We take these decisions seriously and keep context in mind when making them. Breaking the rules may result in the violative content being removed from Spotify. Repeated or egregious violations may result in accounts being suspended and/or terminated. Which doesn't seem to include the new content advisory: > We are working to add a content advisory to any podcast episode that includes a discussion about COVID-19. This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 Hub except in that the policy just says "may". (I don't have any interest in this outcome as I don't use Spotify, but it seems unlikely that this change addresses the issues that people are complaining about)
YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Agree on the PR Dept. angle, but isn't the delisting the choice of the artists? Spotify appears to not care if Neil and Joni can't stand Joe, they'd be happy to keep it all streaming. I would think that for someone with a large catalog and a lot of listeners removing your music would be an expensive stand on principle, which is nice to see.
  - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
    Sure but where do you put the line? Why can he be delisted because he doesn't like Joe Rogan? Can others be delisted because they don't like other Podcast creators? It's a really bad decision to make voluntary.
    - sutuplesu 5y ago
      I think you're saying that musicians should not be able to have input to where their music is distributed? That's a fairly radical position. If that's not what you mean, could you expand or revise?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jjulius 5y ago
      He's delisted because he asked. It's his music and he asked the platform to take his music off. Other artists can ask Spotify to do the same for any reason they want, and Spotify is free to acquiesce to those requests so long as the contract(s) they have in place with labels/artists allows for it. All Spotify did in this instance was respect the request of an artist in regards to what they do with that artist's music, plain and simple.
      - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
buryat 5y ago
hedora 5y ago
- TheSocialAndrew 5y ago
  The same argument can be made about any TV station. "Political propaganda" is a broad term and "harmful" is subjective. Using these labels to censor content / deplatform you disagree with is the antithesis of free speech. What really happened here is that Neil Young is so woke that he deplatformed himself.
  - hedora 5y ago
    Spotify is trying to act like they're socially responsible by adding disclaimers and covid 19 information links, but, at the end of the day, they're funding content that they're claiming is harmful misinformation. They can't have it both ways. When they got into the business of funding right wing talk shows, they picked a side. Now, they're trying to act like they're some bastion of free speech because they let the nutjobs (such as themselves, by their own criteria) use their platform.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tomohawk 5y ago
owly 5y ago
1. Someone arguing against hosting Joe Rogan on their platform could easily interpret that COVID misinformation is violating their first rule. “Content that advocates or glorifies serious physical harm towards an individual or group includes, but may not be limited to:” 2. I wonder if any younger current artists will follow Neil and leave the platform. I think Neil and Joni are unlikely to lose listeners as fans will simply migrate to other platforms. This could decrease Spotify’s strong position as a music platform and drive a perception that they are becoming a podcast platform.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >This could decrease Spotify’s strong position as a music platform and drive a perception that they are becoming a podcast platform. Spotify isn't without fault for that perception; they've been shoving podcasts down everyone's throats.
mrkramer 5y ago
Spotify is in the same situation like Facebook is in the recent times; Spotify end up being content curation platform not platform which empowers creators and connects people. I think free speech is very important and problematic content should not be flagged and removed instead it should be labeled with something like "not fact checked", "controversial" etc.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I don't think it should even be labeled as that would cause similar problems with little benefit. Or at least label it adequately: "Don't watch if you are stupid."
dekhn 5y ago
I don't have the ability to unflag this, but it shouldn't be flagged. It's a formal post from an important computer company about an ongoing topic relevant to HN.

33 points by TigeriusKirk 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tpmx 5y ago

> Today we are publishing our long-standing Platform Rules https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rules/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rul...

gs17 5y ago
The relevant section: >Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health includes, but may not be limited to: >asserting that AIDS, COVID-19, cancer or other serious life threatening diseases are a hoax or not real >encouraging the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases >promoting or suggesting that vaccines approved by local health authorities are designed to cause death >encouraging people to purposely get infected with COVID-19 in order to build immunity to it (e.g. promoting or hosting “coronavirus parties”)
- friendlydog 5y ago
  It doesn't mention vaccines as sterilizing vectors as being prohibited so he could talk about this with impunity: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12346214/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12346214/
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > encouraging the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases Imagine you told someone from 2010 that this would be an internet rule at some point... He maybe would have advised you to drink to bleach to clean your head.

boulos 5y ago

The text of "What happens to rule breakers" from the rules: > We take these decisions seriously and keep context in mind when making them. Breaking the rules may result in the violative content being removed from Spotify. Repeated or egregious violations may result in accounts being suspended and/or terminated. Which doesn't seem to include the new content advisory: > We are working to add a content advisory to any podcast episode that includes a discussion about COVID-19. This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 Hub except in that the policy just says "may". (I don't have any interest in this outcome as I don't use Spotify, but it seems unlikely that this change addresses the issues that people are complaining about)

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Agree on the PR Dept. angle, but isn't the delisting the choice of the artists? Spotify appears to not care if Neil and Joni can't stand Joe, they'd be happy to keep it all streaming. I would think that for someone with a large catalog and a lot of listeners removing your music would be an expensive stand on principle, which is nice to see.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
  Sure but where do you put the line? Why can he be delisted because he doesn't like Joe Rogan? Can others be delisted because they don't like other Podcast creators? It's a really bad decision to make voluntary.
  - sutuplesu 5y ago
    I think you're saying that musicians should not be able to have input to where their music is distributed? That's a fairly radical position. If that's not what you mean, could you expand or revise?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 5y ago
    He's delisted because he asked. It's his music and he asked the platform to take his music off. Other artists can ask Spotify to do the same for any reason they want, and Spotify is free to acquiesce to those requests so long as the contract(s) they have in place with labels/artists allows for it. All Spotify did in this instance was respect the request of an artist in regards to what they do with that artist's music, plain and simple.
    - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago

buryat 5y ago

hedora 5y ago

TheSocialAndrew 5y ago
The same argument can be made about any TV station. "Political propaganda" is a broad term and "harmful" is subjective. Using these labels to censor content / deplatform you disagree with is the antithesis of free speech. What really happened here is that Neil Young is so woke that he deplatformed himself.
- hedora 5y ago
  Spotify is trying to act like they're socially responsible by adding disclaimers and covid 19 information links, but, at the end of the day, they're funding content that they're claiming is harmful misinformation. They can't have it both ways. When they got into the business of funding right wing talk shows, they picked a side. Now, they're trying to act like they're some bastion of free speech because they let the nutjobs (such as themselves, by their own criteria) use their platform.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tomohawk 5y ago

owly 5y ago

1. Someone arguing against hosting Joe Rogan on their platform could easily interpret that COVID misinformation is violating their first rule. “Content that advocates or glorifies serious physical harm towards an individual or group includes, but may not be limited to:” 2. I wonder if any younger current artists will follow Neil and leave the platform. I think Neil and Joni are unlikely to lose listeners as fans will simply migrate to other platforms. This could decrease Spotify’s strong position as a music platform and drive a perception that they are becoming a podcast platform.

jjulius 5y ago
>This could decrease Spotify’s strong position as a music platform and drive a perception that they are becoming a podcast platform. Spotify isn't without fault for that perception; they've been shoving podcasts down everyone's throats.

mrkramer 5y ago

Spotify is in the same situation like Facebook is in the recent times; Spotify end up being content curation platform not platform which empowers creators and connects people. I think free speech is very important and problematic content should not be flagged and removed instead it should be labeled with something like "not fact checked", "controversial" etc.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't think it should even be labeled as that would cause similar problems with little benefit. Or at least label it adequately: "Don't watch if you are stupid."

dekhn 5y ago

I don't have the ability to unflag this, but it shouldn't be flagged. It's a formal post from an important computer company about an ongoing topic relevant to HN.