6 ms·

Spotify Platform Rules

42 points by ofou 5y ago

smitty1e 5y ago
If Spotify throws Rogan under the bus, what alternatives exist?
- boznz 5y ago
  He always says he's got FU Money, he should put his money where his mouth is and go it alone.
throwoutway 5y ago
Spotify’s cookie pop up is deceptive and should violate their own rules
derwiki 5y ago
Who does this apply to? I still see NWA’s music on Spotify Edit: didn’t mean to single out NWA. Eminem’s Purple Pills and Johnny Cash’s Cocaine Blues also come to mind
- milkmanjr 5y ago
  As a huge fan of rap music in general, I think there are many songs which promote illegal activities.
- iqanq 5y ago
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Which wouldn't be surprising because artistic expression is generally treated differently from political advocacy. For example, calling for concrete acts of violence is in most jurisdictions illegal while the bar for fiction that glorifies violence is quite a lot higher. Same would presumably go for say a fictional work that could be interpreted as giving bad medical advice compared to someone trying to pass as an actual medical professional on a podcast. edit: here in Germany for example neo-nazi propaganda is pretty much banned, but Triumph of the Will is not. In particular if it becomes a historical time piece which old school gangster rap almost is, it isn't comparable to calls to action.
smoldesu 5y ago
Well, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. Spotify already had a pretty terrible track record of removing music (if you've got a playlist more than a few years old, half of it is likely gone), and this is unlikely to improve the situation in any capacity. I intend to backup my playlists tonight and get out of dodge while I still can.
- freedomben 5y ago
  I just signed up for spotify premium for the first time to show support for them keeping Rogan. Luckily I'm still in my trial period so I can quit without loss. The unfortunate thing is I really like the service. I was blown away that when I started playing a song on my phone, the linux app saw that and picked it up, and even let me pause from the computer! That is really neat. The recommendations are also really good too. This disappoints me greatly.
  - bikingbismuth 5y ago
    As a counterpoint, I have playlists from 2015 that are still complete. I listen to a lot of music and have only seen a full album removed once, and have seen a dozen or less songs removed. Not saying the original commenter is wrong, just sharing a different experience.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Their desktop app is pretty good, and even feature-complete (and moddable!) on Linux these days which is commendable if nothing else. I generally didn't care about the Rogan controversy (if anything I found his content excruciatingly boring, but not reprehensible), but seeing them tighten down their policy makes me incredibly wary of the platform's future. I don't need a music syncing service, I already have Syncthing. I don't need a podcast app, I have RSS. I pay for Spotify because it's convenient, but if they're increasing moderation and enforcing ludicrous double-standards like this, their value-add over hosting my own music starts waning considerably.
optimalsolver 5y ago
- djbusby 5y ago
  Um, this quote at the top of your link is ignorant-as-fuck "You get the body of the black man and the mind of the white man" QED
  - clessg 5y ago
    Poe's Law at work
ufo 5y ago
Is this new, or was it always there?
- kossae 5y ago
  It appears that this is new: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.spotify.com/us/platform-rules/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.spotify.com/us/pla...
outside1234 5y ago
I think, for me, the core issue is that I want my subscription money going to music, and not to podcasting. I think the only way Spotify and others get through this is to direct your subscription dues to whatever you listen to. That way you can "vote with your ears" and if they put something you don't like on the platform (from your perspective) on the platform, you just don't listen to it, and your money isn't going to it. Hopefully they get there. Until then, I've moved to another all-music platform to get halfway there.
- saurik 5y ago
  Isn't this how it already works? I thought people on Spotify were paid (very little) "per stream".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    This is not how it works. If you subscribe and listen to Bad Apple!! once per month, the rightsholders of that song will not be paid 70% of your subscription cost because of you, or even 1%.
- jarjoura 5y ago
  Isn't that exactly how it works? You listen to something and the artist gets a share of the profits. Same as YouTube. Personally, I still don't think that should make these platforms immune from content scrutiny. There's implicit granting of authenticity when a global leader like Spotify or YouTube hosts content and puts their brand behind it, so I think it's fair they get to decide what is acceptable or not. ESPECIALLY when something is controversial, better to just get it off the platform and take a position that they do not want their brand attached to it. Facebook and Twitter went all in on free speech for years, beyond any reasonable doubt and it still burnt them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
  - outside1234 5y ago
ndeast 5y ago
The only feature keeping me subscribed to Spotify is their Spotify Connect feature. Being able to seamlessly cast to all of my devices directly from the Spotify app is invaluable and no other streaming service I have tried has anything close.
- spondyl 5y ago
  I've been using Plexamp recently and supposedly they're adding a similar feature to Spotify Connect relatively soon: https://twitter.com/plexamp/status/1489024846033915908 https://twitter.com/plexamp/status/1489024846033915908
poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
Many think the recent Joe Rogan heat is because he's recorded (but not yet released) a podcast with Maajid Nawaz, who is a pretty big critic of government/pharma covid narratives. I think this is having a Streisand effect for this episode whenever it drops.
- saurik 5y ago
  Maybe?... except, while I have heard a ton of stuff about this Spotify/Rogan issue many times a day for days now, you are the only person I have seen mention this angle or that coming episode (and it was dumb luck that I saw your comment, as I wasn't expecting anything new and so was just kind of glancing over this thread for what the splash damage of Spotify's "rules" might be). If you are correct about the reason for this "recent heat", the strategy for people to misdirect the issue about something else and then drown out the actual issue while tiring out the media on the overall subject does seem like it could bypass "telling people not to look at or talk about X makes them want to look at X and talk about X" as you are making the whole issue about some unrelated-seeming Y.
spondyl 5y ago
Hmm, there's a song I like called Cop Killer by John Maus. Lyric wise, it's pretty sparse but here's an excerpt > Cop killer > Let's kill the cops tonight > Kill them, cop killer > Let's kill every cop in sight, cop killer I feel like to some hard pressed reviewer just looking at the lyrics, they would easily be seen as violating the following: > Content that advocates or glorifies serious physical harm towards an individual or group includes, but may not be limited to: > inciting or threatening serious physical harm or acts of violence against a specific target or specific group Needless to say, I haven't been compelled to kill any cops as a result of the song. Here's an excerpt from an interview about the track: > "I've always wanted to do something with that lyric," says the excitable Minnesotan, words gushing out of him in an enthusiastic torrent. > "Cop Killer is the perfect way of putting over the idea that any worthwhile political or artistic agenda should be seeking an undoing of the situation as it stands. Whether the status quo is a political state or a musical language, the idea should be to kill or overthrow that. The song's not about killing a human being, but about overcoming inhumanity; destroying the machinery that turns us toward an end other than ourselves."
Gigachad 5y ago
Looks like we might be leaving the golden era of music streaming like we are past the golden era of video streaming. Was a good run where basically all content was available on all platforms, but it looks like we will be facing pretty bad fragmentation from now on.
ecshafer 5y ago
While this is almost assuredly in response to the Media circus around Joe Rogan, I find the child exploitation section interesting. How many pop singers should this ban, if actually applied equally. Would Britney Spears (who debuted at 16 I believe?) have been banned on this. Many of the Disney type pop singers, that they always have a few around, would probably be banned on this. A rather large portion of the music industry should fall afoul of "promoting, normalizing, or glorifying child grooming behaviors".

42 points by ofou 5y ago

smitty1e 5y ago

If Spotify throws Rogan under the bus, what alternatives exist?

boznz 5y ago
He always says he's got FU Money, he should put his money where his mouth is and go it alone.

throwoutway 5y ago

Spotify’s cookie pop up is deceptive and should violate their own rules

derwiki 5y ago

Who does this apply to? I still see NWA’s music on Spotify Edit: didn’t mean to single out NWA. Eminem’s Purple Pills and Johnny Cash’s Cocaine Blues also come to mind

milkmanjr 5y ago
As a huge fan of rap music in general, I think there are many songs which promote illegal activities.
iqanq 5y ago
Barrin92 5y ago
Which wouldn't be surprising because artistic expression is generally treated differently from political advocacy. For example, calling for concrete acts of violence is in most jurisdictions illegal while the bar for fiction that glorifies violence is quite a lot higher. Same would presumably go for say a fictional work that could be interpreted as giving bad medical advice compared to someone trying to pass as an actual medical professional on a podcast. edit: here in Germany for example neo-nazi propaganda is pretty much banned, but Triumph of the Will is not. In particular if it becomes a historical time piece which old school gangster rap almost is, it isn't comparable to calls to action.

smoldesu 5y ago

Well, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. Spotify already had a pretty terrible track record of removing music (if you've got a playlist more than a few years old, half of it is likely gone), and this is unlikely to improve the situation in any capacity. I intend to backup my playlists tonight and get out of dodge while I still can.

freedomben 5y ago
I just signed up for spotify premium for the first time to show support for them keeping Rogan. Luckily I'm still in my trial period so I can quit without loss. The unfortunate thing is I really like the service. I was blown away that when I started playing a song on my phone, the linux app saw that and picked it up, and even let me pause from the computer! That is really neat. The recommendations are also really good too. This disappoints me greatly.
- bikingbismuth 5y ago
  As a counterpoint, I have playlists from 2015 that are still complete. I listen to a lot of music and have only seen a full album removed once, and have seen a dozen or less songs removed. Not saying the original commenter is wrong, just sharing a different experience.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Their desktop app is pretty good, and even feature-complete (and moddable!) on Linux these days which is commendable if nothing else. I generally didn't care about the Rogan controversy (if anything I found his content excruciatingly boring, but not reprehensible), but seeing them tighten down their policy makes me incredibly wary of the platform's future. I don't need a music syncing service, I already have Syncthing. I don't need a podcast app, I have RSS. I pay for Spotify because it's convenient, but if they're increasing moderation and enforcing ludicrous double-standards like this, their value-add over hosting my own music starts waning considerably.

optimalsolver 5y ago

djbusby 5y ago
Um, this quote at the top of your link is ignorant-as-fuck "You get the body of the black man and the mind of the white man" QED
- clessg 5y ago
  Poe's Law at work

ufo 5y ago

Is this new, or was it always there?

kossae 5y ago
It appears that this is new: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.spotify.com/us/platform-rules/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.spotify.com/us/pla...

outside1234 5y ago

I think, for me, the core issue is that I want my subscription money going to music, and not to podcasting. I think the only way Spotify and others get through this is to direct your subscription dues to whatever you listen to. That way you can "vote with your ears" and if they put something you don't like on the platform (from your perspective) on the platform, you just don't listen to it, and your money isn't going to it. Hopefully they get there. Until then, I've moved to another all-music platform to get halfway there.

saurik 5y ago
Isn't this how it already works? I thought people on Spotify were paid (very little) "per stream".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  This is not how it works. If you subscribe and listen to Bad Apple!! once per month, the rightsholders of that song will not be paid 70% of your subscription cost because of you, or even 1%.
jarjoura 5y ago
Isn't that exactly how it works? You listen to something and the artist gets a share of the profits. Same as YouTube. Personally, I still don't think that should make these platforms immune from content scrutiny. There's implicit granting of authenticity when a global leader like Spotify or YouTube hosts content and puts their brand behind it, so I think it's fair they get to decide what is acceptable or not. ESPECIALLY when something is controversial, better to just get it off the platform and take a position that they do not want their brand attached to it. Facebook and Twitter went all in on free speech for years, beyond any reasonable doubt and it still burnt them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- outside1234 5y ago

ndeast 5y ago

The only feature keeping me subscribed to Spotify is their Spotify Connect feature. Being able to seamlessly cast to all of my devices directly from the Spotify app is invaluable and no other streaming service I have tried has anything close.

spondyl 5y ago
I've been using Plexamp recently and supposedly they're adding a similar feature to Spotify Connect relatively soon: https://twitter.com/plexamp/status/1489024846033915908 https://twitter.com/plexamp/status/1489024846033915908

poorjohnmacafee 5y ago

Many think the recent Joe Rogan heat is because he's recorded (but not yet released) a podcast with Maajid Nawaz, who is a pretty big critic of government/pharma covid narratives. I think this is having a Streisand effect for this episode whenever it drops.

saurik 5y ago
Maybe?... except, while I have heard a ton of stuff about this Spotify/Rogan issue many times a day for days now, you are the only person I have seen mention this angle or that coming episode (and it was dumb luck that I saw your comment, as I wasn't expecting anything new and so was just kind of glancing over this thread for what the splash damage of Spotify's "rules" might be). If you are correct about the reason for this "recent heat", the strategy for people to misdirect the issue about something else and then drown out the actual issue while tiring out the media on the overall subject does seem like it could bypass "telling people not to look at or talk about X makes them want to look at X and talk about X" as you are making the whole issue about some unrelated-seeming Y.

spondyl 5y ago

Hmm, there's a song I like called Cop Killer by John Maus. Lyric wise, it's pretty sparse but here's an excerpt > Cop killer > Let's kill the cops tonight > Kill them, cop killer > Let's kill every cop in sight, cop killer I feel like to some hard pressed reviewer just looking at the lyrics, they would easily be seen as violating the following: > Content that advocates or glorifies serious physical harm towards an individual or group includes, but may not be limited to: > inciting or threatening serious physical harm or acts of violence against a specific target or specific group Needless to say, I haven't been compelled to kill any cops as a result of the song. Here's an excerpt from an interview about the track: > "I've always wanted to do something with that lyric," says the excitable Minnesotan, words gushing out of him in an enthusiastic torrent. > "Cop Killer is the perfect way of putting over the idea that any worthwhile political or artistic agenda should be seeking an undoing of the situation as it stands. Whether the status quo is a political state or a musical language, the idea should be to kill or overthrow that. The song's not about killing a human being, but about overcoming inhumanity; destroying the machinery that turns us toward an end other than ourselves."

Gigachad 5y ago

Looks like we might be leaving the golden era of music streaming like we are past the golden era of video streaming. Was a good run where basically all content was available on all platforms, but it looks like we will be facing pretty bad fragmentation from now on.

ecshafer 5y ago

While this is almost assuredly in response to the Media circus around Joe Rogan, I find the child exploitation section interesting. How many pop singers should this ban, if actually applied equally. Would Britney Spears (who debuted at 16 I believe?) have been banned on this. Many of the Disney type pop singers, that they always have a few around, would probably be banned on this. A rather large portion of the music industry should fall afoul of "promoting, normalizing, or glorifying child grooming behaviors".