Spotify to pull hateful songs and artists

[coleb13]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/11/spotify_introduces_hate_content_and_hateful_conduct_public_policy/

[rando]

Anything to get more clicks.  No doubt they are tying this into revenue of some kind.  

 

On a side note I was amused to see this audiophile stock image in one of that site's linked articles at the bottom of the page.

 

[Daverz]

No more Gesualdo and Wagner on Spotify?  And what about all those James Levine recordings?

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, cjf said:

Fucking Liberals have started penetrating the music business now too it seems. Wonder if there will be a safe room offered for those who have been violated by listening to an album they disagree with or have been offended by?

 

Just move on to something if you don't like it. No need to be a bitch about it and screw up everyone else music choice cause your feelings have been hurt!

 

Shits going downhill everywhere

 

So...

 

you're pro-hate?

[Ralf11]

Release the Oxytocin Strike Drones

[cjf]

9 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

So...

 

you're pro-hate?

No, more like pro first amendment.

[plissken]

9 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

So...

 

you're pro-hate?

 

I think he's anti-slippery slope. Are you into being the thought police? 

[rando]

12 hours ago, cjf said:

Shits going downhill everywhere

 

[Completely edited out non-site appropriate content that ably dealt with portrayals of inhuman criminal behaviors and self abuse in music.]

 

Everything else is a matter that can be worked out one way or the other among thoughtful people willing to act like adults to fill the void for those incapable of such actions.  I doubt anyone here really thinks that is at all what the end effect at Spotify  will be.  Which is enabling low self esteem homebodies by banning Neil Diamond, or attacking something else their parents grew up listening to, for not being gender fluid or some other hooey.  

 

Anything to get more clicks.  

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I think he's anti-slippery slope. Are you into being the thought police? 

 

No, I am against glorifying hate and violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, cjf said:

No, more like pro first amendment.

 

There are limits on it already.  You are prohibited from inciting violence for example...

 

Furthermore, the 1st Amendment only protects your speech from the government.  You have zero rights to free speech on Spotify, other than the protected classes of people.  Which I bet you also don't like...

 

Just like this website, you have zero rights to free speech here as well.  Chris is the final arbiter of what can and can not be said.

[plissken]

30 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

No, I am against glorifying hate and violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.

 

But since that is a subjective measure I don't want you to define it for anyone else. So you ARE the thought police. 

 

Nazi Germany burned a lot of books using the same types of idealistic logic. 

 

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

No, I am against glorifying hate and violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.

 

aha - anti-gopher football, eh?

[AudioDoctor]

That didn't take long.  I don't think I have ever seen anyone called a Nazi not even 10 posts in...

 

edit: 12 posts in...

 

edit 2: Is Spotify the Government now?

 

edit 3: The Nazis Hated.  I was advocating against hate.  Spotify is against hate.  Spotify is saying that they will remove Nazi music (if there is such a thing, I assume there is)

 

edit 4: final edit:  When the Government starts infringing on peoples free speech rights, then you let me know.  Spotify is free to carry on.  No 1st amendment violations or slippery slopes.

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

aha - anti-gopher football, eh?

 

Pro Michigan football!

[Ralf11]

the real point here is that Mr. Hatey doesn't like Capitalism and wants to interfere with a company pursuing its own ideas about what to provide

 

Mr. Hatey could start his OWN company -- if he was a true conservative

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

the real point here is that Mr. Hatey doesn't like Capitalism and wants to interfere with a company pursuing its own ideas about what to provide

 

Mr. Hatey could start his OWN company -- if he was a true conservative

 

I wonder if he would allow unfettered free speech...  Hmmmmmm

[plissken]

24 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

That didn't take long.  I don't think I have ever seen anyone called a Nazi not even 10 posts in...

 

edit: 12 posts in...

 

edit 2: Is Spotify the Government now?

 

edit 3: The Nazis Hated.  I was advocating against hate.  Spotify is against hate.  Spotify is saying that they will remove Nazi music (if there is such a thing, I assume there is)

 

edit 4: final edit:  When the Government starts infringing on peoples free speech rights, then you let me know.  Spotify is free to carry on.  No 1st amendment violations or slippery slopes.

 

What post did  I call someone a Nazi. Either post it or apologize and redact.  What I was pointing out is that a national sentiment about burning (suppressing) speech didn't work out too well. I'd call someone an idiot, but not a Nazi. 

 

Spotify can do what ever they want to certain point since they are a privately held company. What I care about is the sentiment of entitlement that engenders this.

 

As I said it's a slippery slope. 

[AudioDoctor]

 

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

But since that is a subjective measure I don't want you to define it for anyone else. So you ARE the thought police. 

 

Nazi Germany burned a lot of books using the same types of idealistic logic. 

 

 

 

It is implied right here.

 

What was my grievous offense? Mentioning that the 1st Amendment does not protect the listeners "right" (as if there is such a thing) to hear whatever music they want on Spotify. 1, the 1st Amendment protects your speech from the Government and short of Spotify discriminating against any protected class of persons they can remove whatever music they want, 2, You as an individual have no "right" to hear anything on Spotify, and 3, You would not be the aggrieved party if Spotify were to remove an artists songs, unless it was your song, and they were removing it to discriminate against you as a member of one of the protected classes.

 

As I said, when the Government gets in the business of suppressing speech you let me know.  In fact, our own government right now is closer to Nazi Germany than my ideals are, you don't even know what they are.

[AudioDoctor]

That's Freedom.  That's the American way.  No "fucking liberals" are ruining anything because there is literally nothing being ruined here, our freedoms and our ideals as a nation are fully intact. And if that poster doesn't like it, he or she is also free to "move on."

[plissken]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

It is implied right here.

 

Nothing was implied. It's fact that the zeal for banning other speech is one aspect that allowed Hitler and the Nazi party to gain. 

 

Again I said it's a slippery slope, Spotify can do what ever it wants, and I don't need thought police. I'm quite capable of skipping music I find distasteful. I don't need anyone doing it for me. Go be a goody two shoes somewhere else. You aren't my dad. 

[AudioDoctor]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Nothing was implied. It's fact that the zeal for banning other speech is one aspect that allowed Hitler and the Nazi party to gain. 

 

Again I said it's a slippery slope, Spotify can do what ever it wants, and I don't need thought police. I'm quite capable of skipping music I find distasteful. I don't need anyone doing it for me. Go be a goody two shoes somewhere else. You aren't my dad. 

 

I never said you can't listen to it.  I said Spotify can do whatever the hell they want.

[plissken]

9 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I never said you can't listen to it.  I said Spotify can do whatever the hell they want.

 

And all I'm saying is there is a general movement by a subset of the population to start attempting to dictate what is correct and what is not for everyone else. Spotify's moves aren't in a vacuum. AGAIN it's a slippery slope.

 

You still either need to redact or apologize. I didn't by omission, overt statement, implication, call anyone a Nazi. What I pointed out is a movement to control what other people could read and how they should think as a real example of it being allowed to go on and have real ramifications. The fact you took it the way you did reveals much about your mindset and it's a bit unsettling because it means you forgot your history. 

 

 

[christopher3393]

More background and explanation:

 

http://www.vulture.com/2018/05/what-spotify-blacklisting-r-kelly-and-xxxtentacion-means.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/arts/music/rkelly-spotify-accusations-xxxtentacion.html

[AudioDoctor]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

And all I'm saying is there is a general movement by a subset of the population to start attempting to dictate what is correct and what is not for everyone else. Spotify's moves aren't in a vacuum. AGAIN it's a slippery slope.

 

 

 

Because there are never any bad outcomes from hateful and violent music? I personally would like to do a large study on the listening habits of people incarcerated in prisons for violent crimes, and those of us not incarcerated in prison for violent crimes. I doubt many here listen to Gangsta Rap or have been to prison for violent crimes. I bet we would find some correlation between the two, as well as some correlation between socioeconomic status and types of music liked.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/05/10/610060176/chris-brown-rapper-young-lo-named-in-sexual-assault-suit?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprstoriesfromnpr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180510

[plissken]

13 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Because there are never any bad outcomes from hateful and violent music? I personally would like to do a large study on the listening habits of people incarcerated in prisons for violent crimes, and those of us not incarcerated in prison for violent crimes. I doubt many here listen to Gangsta Rap or have been to prison for violent crimes. I bet we would find some correlation between the two, as well as some correlation between socioeconomic status and types of music liked.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/05/10/610060176/chris-brown-rapper-young-lo-named-in-sexual-assault-suit?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprstoriesfromnpr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180510

 

R Kelly is off of spotify because he's a horrible human being in their opinion (never mind the jury said not guilty). It means all the content he's created is also gone regardless of the message it conveys. 

 

Did the jury find that bad music turned Chris Brown into an asshole?

 

I'm sure there's a bunch of people not in prison that listen to GanstaRap. Again I don't need you, or someone like you, portending to be the arbiter of this. I can make up my own mind. Personally I don't have any GangstaRap in my collection for the same reason I don't have Country Western or Honky Tonk. I don't need help from society in figuring this stuff out. 

 

Your's is the same sophistry used to state that video games cause school shootings. I'm just as against controlling if Rock Star Studio's can release another GTA. I'm able to make decisions on my own and I've never played GTA in any incarnation.