MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Feminist Group Demands Spotify's New 'Hate Content' Policy Be Applied to Red Hot Chili Peppers, Eminem

The company's new policy is already giving it problems.

Jales Valquer/ZUMA Press/NewscomJales Valquer/ZUMA Press/NewscomWhen Spotify introduced its new "hate content and hateful conduct" policy—which promises to suppress songs for violent or hateful lyrics or offstage behavior—I predicted that the streaming service would soon be caught between users wanting easy access to popular music and activists demanding that artists be scrubbed from the platform.

Sure enough, the feminist group Ultraviolet has now sent a letter to Spotify thanking it for the initial steps of removing R. Kelly and XXXTentacion from official playlists— and asking that the company go further.

"These two men are not the only abusers on your platform," writes Ultraviolet's Shaunna Thomas. "We implore you to take a deeper look at the artists you promote." She goes on to call for the company to exile Eminem, Nelly, Don Henley of the Eagles, Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, Chris Brown, rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine, Ted Nugent, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

"Every time a famous individual continues to be glorified despite allegations of abuse, we wrongly perpetuate silence by showing survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence that there will be no consequences for abuse," says Thomas. "That has a cultural effect far beyond one individual artist."

Let's be clear: All these performers have done, or at least been accused of doing, awful things.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers' lead singer, Anthony Kiedis, admits to having sex with a girl he knew to be 14 years old in his autobiography Scar Tissue. (He was 23 at the time, and the incident later became the inspiration for the song "Catholic School Girls Rule.") Brown was convicted of battering his then-girlfriend Rhianna in 2009. Eminem pled guilty to a weapons charge in 2001. 6ix9ine received three years' probation for charges stemming from a film he made of himself performing sexual acts with a 13-year-old. Don Henley, Steven Tyler, and Ted Nugent have all either admitted or been accused of sleeping with underage girls.

Let's be clear about this too: Whether or not Ultraviolet is right that these musicians are "glorified" by virtue of appearing on Spotify-generated playlists and promotions, Thomas has a point when she argues that it's inconsistent to refuse to promote R. Kelly's music but not Brown's or Kiedis's. If the company is actually serious about this new policy, it'll have to go a lot further than R. Kelly and XXXTentacion.

And I mean a lot further. Ultraviolet's list just scratches the surface. Whether it's Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13-year-old cousin or David Bowie taking the virginity of a 14-year-old, a lot of pop stars' escapades don't conform to modern norms of affirmative consent and gender equity. There's no shortage of articles (start with this listicle from the Phoenix New Times) retelling tales of statutory rape and sexual assault by beloved rockers and rappers.

It doesn't stop there. A fair number of rappers have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or some other violent crime. Dig into the history of Norwegian black metal and you'll learn that members of such foundational bands as Burzum, Gorgoroth, and Mayhem have been found guilty of church burnings, torture, and murdering bandmates.

And at least two out of four Beatles—John Lennon and Ringo Starr—were domestic abusers.

Needless to say, just because this kind of behavior is common in the music scene doesn't make it OK. But it does raise the question of what a music streaming service can really be expected to do about it. Indeed, blacklisting these bands may make many of Spotify's features functionally useless. What classic rock playlist would exclude the Beatles?

How to treat the work of artists who have done terrible things is a difficult question. It's made no easier by the fact that fans often cheer on musicians' worst behavior, even reveling in the idea that the violence and hedonistic excesses found in their lyrics is at least partially authentic.

It's also a question that companies like Spotify are ill-equipped to answer. Acting as the moral arbiter, as its new policy requires, will only erode the value of its service while leaving individual listeners less able to make moral judgements for themselves.

Photo Credit: Jales Valquer/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • damikesc||

    I've always said, once a company says "This is too inappropriate for our service", it opens the Pandora's Box. It means they think anything they keep there IS appropriate. Easier to simply say "We don't censor. You can always choose to not listen".

    Every time a famous individual continues to be glorified despite allegations of abuse

    It is always key to remember that they do not care IF it was done. An allegation is enough.

    Shame Spotify is dealing with this. But they brought it all on themselves. Virtue signalling is never a good idea.

  • Tony||

    Pandora's Box

    Cute.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    ^first time Tony ever thought someone's box was cute

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He's more interested in the brown eye of a young barely pubescent schoolboy. Chickenhawk pederast that he is.

  • MarkLastname||

    Oh please, no way in hell Tony is a top.

  • Don't look at me.||

    A catcher not a pitcher?

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Tony masturbates at gay porn, so of course he wants to open a dude's box.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Absolutely the case. Google not showing shopping results for guns (among other things), even though those sales have to go through FFLs, was just opening up the floodgates. There is no end to such political posturing and pandering.

    Give an inch, take a mile. It is well known. Yet fools rush in regardless.

  • Ben of Houston||

    I can't help but think that this is malicious compliance. Fulfill a demand to the letter just to show how absurd it is.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, it's malicious cowardice. None of these mass internet companies is willing simply to stand up and say "sorry you are offended by the artist but we're not playing your game". None of them want to be "marked bad" for taking any kind of free-market stand in the face of the Feminazis. And the downward slide of what we used to know as Western Civilization continues apace.

  • colorblindkid||

    What slippery slope?

  • Jerryskids||

    They probably thought it was the Danegeld. You know the old saying about how once you give some gold to marauding pirates they go away and never come back again. "Give 'em an inch and they'll move a mile away."

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Eminem pled guilty to a weapons charge in 2001.

    AND STILL HE IS ALLOWED TO WALK THE STREETS?!??

    Seriously, one of these things is not like the others, and has fuckall to do with Ultraviolet or Spotify's new policy. And it sure as hell doesn't fit with the lead-in of "Let's be clear: All these performers have done, or at least been accused of doing, awful things."

  • susancol||

    ^This. All the other crimes are bad in-and-of-themselves (malum in se). A weapon's charge is something that is bad Because We Say So, not because it actually causes any actual harm at all (malum prohibitum). Not the same thing.

  • SIV||

    Statuatory rape is usually malum prohibitum

  • SIV||

    Statuatory rape is usually malum prohibitum

  • SIV||

    Statuatory rape is usually malum prohibitum

  • Nothing2CHere||

    Methinks thou doth protest too much.

  • StackOfCoins||

    But, SIV, it says it right there in the charge. Statutory rape.

    Surely that's an accurate descriptor and not some politically-charged bullshit.

  • damikesc||

    And isn't one of the cause celebres is how unfair it is that minorities have their lives ruined over minor things? Yet, they want to ruin minority artists over accusations.

    Did Chris Brown punch Rihanna? Apparently, yes. But she didn't press charges and if she don't care...why should I?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    You're right, though it wasn't really necessary to say it three times.

    That said, "malum prohibitum" does not mean that the act does not cause any actual harm, just that it is illegal only because we (society) chose to make it illegal. If having a 30-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old girl were not illegal it very likely would still be at least psychologically harmful to the girl.

    And that said, when Jerry Lee married his 13-year-old cousin it was legal in that jurisdiction.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    I looked into it because I also thought, "one of these things is not like the others." He pled to an unlawful concealed weapon after he pistol whipped a guy. The assault with a deadly weapon charge was dropped because of his plea bargain. Whether you consider a pistol whipping worthy of awful things is up to you, but there's more to it than just a weapons charge.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The point of a plea bargain is to conclude the case; so legally what Eminem did was engage in unlawful possession of a deadly weapon.

    I'm still wondering why the culture warriors haven' pilloried Eminem for cultural appropriation, which in their view must be at least as serious as pistol whipping somebody.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I consider the Piña Coloda song to be hate speech. Please remove it from your service.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'd like to add that anything by Jimmy Buffet, Blue Swede, and Meatloaf should also be removed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Like a Bat Out of Hell you can get the fuck out of here.

  • Finrod||

    I couldn't have said it better myself, for crying out loud. Just remember, objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Figures there's even more crappy music you like.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Let's not forget Winger.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Hey she was seventeen, which is legal in most states.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "She was just seventeen, you know what I mean, and the way she looked was way beyond compare"

    Curse you, Lennon & McCartney

  • ThomasD||

    Until now I had.

    Thanks.

    Alot.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    And what about that Nirvana song that explicitly promotes rape.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You can always just play the Walmart friendly "Waif Me" instead.

  • damikesc||

    Technically, it could be any of them.

    They weren't great at the whole enunciation thing.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Fuck you. Meatloaf and Jimmy Buffet are great musicians.

    -jcr

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'm sorry but your statement is incorrect.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Two out of three ain't bad.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Jcr is correct.

  • Finrod||

    Well, you're half right.

  • gah87||

    There are not enough employees at Spotify to carry Meatloaf kicking and screaming from their service.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I took it to mean that he objected to the mutual adultery in that song. (Bored guy places a personal ad and to his surprise, his equally bored wife unknowingly answers it.)

    I think this happened in real life a few years back. Some crappy husband hooked up with some chick from Craigslist (back before FOSTA) and was shocked to find out the bored married woman who agreed to meet him was his own wife. I think he actually beat her up because some people have zero self-awareness.

  • Eidde||

    Which of them were convicted, which of them at least admitted crimes, and which of them were accused, denied the accusations, and *weren't* convicted?

    I suspected these problems would emerge when they delegated the selection of their songs and musicians to lefty groups. They should make the decisions themselves.

    I like the idea of a company deciding not to deal with musicians whose songs actively promote bad behavior, but second-guessing the justice system seems a bit much.

    And suppose one of these musicians were convicted of committing a crime against someone. So long as they have a deal to pay the victims the compensation they're owed, then playing the guy's songs would help the victims, IMHO.

  • Eidde||

    "He beat his girlfriend and was ordered to pay damages, but because he beat his girlfriend they won't play his songs so now he's too poor to pay her!"

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "I like the idea of a company deciding not to deal with musicians whose songs actively promote bad behavior"

    I don't even trust them that far. Does a song REALLY promote bad behavior, or is it a criticism of bad behavior among certain groups of people and some listeners are too dumb to figure that out? I remember when the Tipper Gore people singled out songs like Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" and The Police's "Murder by Numbers," for promoting suicide and murder respectively, when neither song did such things.

    The thing is, the authorities sometimes DO know what the message within an artistic creation really intended to do but choose to play dumb because they don't like being criticized. Wasn't Jonathan Swift condemned for supposedly promoting child cannibalism for his satirical essay "A Modest Proposal" specifically because the English government did not like being called out by him for their treatment of the Irish?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I don't even trust them that far.

    This. It's not their job to be a moral scold any more than it is to police "hateful content."

  • Eidde||

    Yeah, I don't like it when people say Johnny Cash was actually endorsing shooting people just to watch him die.

    The point of the song was he messed up and now he's in prison and that's real depressing.

    There are some songs, of course, which lack that sort of nuance - they talk about violence and misbehavior because they seem to like it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Even that is mostly innocent. People point at metal, but the violent stuff is basically the musical equivalent of a horror film. Nerds having fun coming up with over the top situations. Metal fans are among the chillest I ever meet.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Johnny Cash is good example.

    Songs often tell fictional stories about made up characters. They are not autobiographical. I don't think Freddy Mercury actually told his mama that he thrown away his life all because he casually decided to shoot someone in the head.

  • Eidde||

    But that particular song also suggests that, in hindsight, killing the guy was a bad idea. There's nothing in there to make killing people look cool.

  • Eidde||

    The question is whether the song excites horror at the act, or encourages it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Sort of like Hihn comments vs. Tony comments?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then he wss molested by his fat nanny either?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then he wss molested by his fat nanny either?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Wow, I think I just figured out what must have happened to John!

    No wonder he likes those fat-bottomed girls.

  • ThomasD||

    Who cares about criminal convictions.

    What's next - people demanding Oscar Wilde be removed from libraries?

  • Finrod||

    Just wait until the anti-drug warriors try to pull Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas from the library.

    "We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold."

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    You're missing the point. All these post-Salem cultural marauders care about is that an allegation was made. Whether it happened, or whether there was sufficient evidence to take it to trial -- much less convict -- is irrelevant. It's the smoke that matters, not any actual fire. Nor, to be certain, any lapse of time. Look at new Lions coach Matt Patricia, pilloried now for something that [i]allegedly[/i] happened 26 years ago for which he was never arrested or tried.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Gee, who could have seen this coming? Oh, right, anyone with a half a brain, that's who. Which obviously rules out the executives at Spotify and everyone who works for the SPLC.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    According to the Peanuts sexual battery is wrong if you're a liberal (HW) and okay if you're a Republican (DJT).

  • damikesc||

    Trump isn't being accused of race.

    And Republicans are all "sexists", right? Shouldn't the "pro-woman" Democrats be way less likely to abuse women than Republicans? Yet virtually all of te #MeToo subjects have been...proggie men.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Trump isn't being accused of race.

    He's definitely too old for that now.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Tortoise and the Bizarre Hair?

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    @Palin's Buttplug whatever you walking sack of leftard shit. Go fuck yourself, bottom feeder. I don't take seriously anybody who wants to enslave another, why don't you keep that private and have your boyfriend whip you in your dungeon instead of taking out your fantasies on the rest of it.

  • Finrod||

    What he said.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So now we are expected to make no distinction between the artist and the art. An artist can be blacklisted solely on an accusation. There is to be no forgiveness, no mercy, no context for changing mores. There are only the never ending demands of the aggrieved.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Welcome to social liberal utopia.

  • SIV||

    Add "fiscal responsibility " and it's COSMOTOPIA.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Welcome to social liberal utopia.

  • Eidde||

    In this climate, accusation = guilt.

    And if they actually made great art but are crooks in real life, then why punish the public for the artist being unworthy of his art? The public is worthy of it!

  • ||

    In this climate, accusation = guilt.

    Close. Accusation + cis-male = guilt.

    There are a shit ton of female musicians who are every bit as sexist and plenty more who are more vindictive and violent, they just don't get charges filed against them because disbelieving women and/or treating two people in a fight as equals is taboo.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Welcome to the new social liberal order.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Squirrels.

    I refreshed the damned thing before posting the last one and other two were not visible.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a long convoluted story that I cannot be bothered to remember.

  • damikesc||

    And we laugh at the insanity of the Salem witch trials...

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, we do. Even though - for their time - they were judicial proceedings of high procedural and evidentiary standards.

    Instead we dismiss them as 'insanity' or religious intolerance.

    We do ourselves a tremendous disservice by not recognizing that the potential for similar events remains strong.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    We also need to remember that the 20 who were executed were later exonerated.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Joe McCarthy would be so proud.

  • damikesc||

    A. Mitchell Palmer says hi. And says that McCarthy was a pussy and a piker next to him.

  • JuanQPublic||

    This right here is the glaring thing about this entire thing: the inability to separate creative works from the artist. It's ignorant anti-intellectualism, and denial of humanity.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I didn't know Don Henley had molested anyone. I thought it was going to be an objection to his song lyric about a "bubble-headed bleached blonde" airing Dirty Laundry on TV. I always thought that was a knock on vapid TV newscasts more than on women with dyed hair.

    But what happened to separating an artist's work from their personal lives? I still like Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" even though he was a rapid anti-Semite. And I will probably watch some of Kevin Spacey's movies again, especially "The Usual Suspects," despite his own craptastic personal life.

    And then there's Roman Polanski. If the accusation against him is true, the guy is a horrible dirtbag, to be sure, but his homage to film noir ("Chinatown") and homage to Hitchcock ("Frantic") are still terrific films.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I almost feel bad for the shit Woody Allen has been getting lately. He's spent 50 years saying exactly what he does, in every film he makes. He must be very confused that everyone who has known about him forever, is suddenly finding him unacceptable.

  • BYODB||

    And, in fairness, I always found Woody Allen unacceptable but not for the reasons people are suddenly finding unacceptable.

    I just thought his movies were terrible, is all.

  • damikesc||

    Would it be too much to ask him to ever hire a fucking competent editor?

    And speaking of shit directors, Spike Lee. He made a movie about Malcolm X fucking boring. How much skill does that take?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm offended by today's country music. I miss the old gettin' drunk and cheating on your spouse C&W. Maybe Spotify will ban that too.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Do you listen to the radio? Alcoholism and adultery are still pretty common topics, along with rural-resentment and trucks being proxies for masculinity.

    And I say this as someone who listens to country radio every morning commute.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Isn't country just watered down rock played by people in flyover country?

  • The Last American Hero||

    It has been ever since Chris Gaines couldn't cut it in rock but made a mint in "new country".

  • EscherEnigma||

    Eh, is agree that the overlap in the Venn Diagrams is getting larger, but certain sounds and themes are still pretty segregated.

    For example, a year or two back there was a country song "Girl Crush" that's about the (female) singer wanting to be more like the girlfriend of her crush, but the song *sounds* like a love song from a woman to another woman. It caused a lot of angry calls to radio stations. Compare this to Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" from like a decade ago which caused much less controversy despite *actually* being about kissing another girl.

    So while stylistically they're getting closer, culturally they're still pretty distinct.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    So while stylistically they're getting closer,

    They've been "getting closer" since the late 80s/early 90s. I remember the first time I saw a video clip of a garth brooks/reba concert and thinking that it was in essence a Journey (or insert similar non-threatening AOR band) style arena rock concert. Adding a violin and a little twang was hardly enough to disguise it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Correct. And yet, you can still tell which station you're on just by the sound, so it's still a Venn Diagram, and not a perfect circle.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    A Perfect Circle is just Tool for girls.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    a violin

    Thems fiddles to us country folk

  • Finrod||

    Watch out, the devil is a fiddle player too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It caused a lot of angry calls to radio stations.

    Really? Do people still make angry calls to radio stations? Ok, I guess there is a cultural divide here.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait a minute... what the hell am I talking about. This entire blogpost is about people making an angry call to an internet company. So I guess little has changed.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Contemporary "country" died the death when the CMA embraced Taylor Swift, whose act consists primarily of vapid, self-pitying songs performed as though she took a correspondence course in dry-humping.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I really like Old Crow Medicine Show. And Brown Bird, though the latter may not qualify as country.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Does The Dead South count? Can Canadians be country?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

  • Priscilla King||

    Two words: Hank Snow.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I like Marty Robbins, especially after hearing some in a Fallout game I play. But I hear that's actually Western rather than Country.

  • lap83||

    It's not country unless the song is written by a committee

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Now I'm curious as to whether one can find Ethel Pump on Youtube.

  • Don't look at me.||

    To be clear, country music isn't really music.

  • lap83||

    Not anymore. Modern rock is watered down country.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyL-iJQSk5A

  • EscherEnigma||

    This article perfectly captures what frustrates me about "libertarians". Y'all get outraged about the government responding to X, and say that responding to X should be left to companies, allowing them to decide for themselves whether X is acceptable and what should be done.

    Then companies respond to X and what do y'all do? Complain that it isn't right for companies to respond to X, that they should never respond to X and that only *individuals* can respond to X.

    And the next step down the line, when individuals respond to X? Y'all complain about censorship, economic terrorism and so on.

    That said, Spotify getting a letter isn't the same as having a "problem".

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "Companies and individuals should be allowed to respond to X, but it doesn't mean they're right to respond to X."

    Sometimes the only proper response to X is hearty laugh and an invitation for the complainer to fuck off. For example, when people complain that only South Asians should be allowed to do yoga.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We have every right to complain when companies "respond to X" especially if X is odious or disagreeable. That has nothing to do with being skeptical of a legislator with a large domestic army at his back forcing a company to "respond to X".

    However, Spotify has every reason to be idiots here and as a result, I can cancel my subscription.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Of course you have the "right". And I have the "right" to find your hypocritical self-serving behavior to be extremely frustrating.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes, and you illustrate your own duplicity when you do complain and pretend to not understand the difference between objecting to coercive monopolistic government and businesses being stupid and self-destructive.

    There would be no difference if government could go bankrupt for stupid decisions. But then it wouldn't fit statist definitions of government, would it?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    If stupid decisions could actually sink a government the way they can very quickly shut down a business, we would have had a stateless society many generations ago.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I understand the difference just fine, but you do not understand my criticism.

    To put it simply, y'all start by pretending that you just don't want government involved, but when folks call your bluff and start doing things without government you keep complaining anyway. Y'all can't be honest and just say "we don't like people caring about this issue".

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Okay, I will be honest: I detest the censorship of art/literature/music. Period.

    I may be worse when it's government doing the censoring (because of their power), but it sucks regardless of who is doing it. Back when it was a Catholic priest with a radio show (the Hollywood code), when it was a likely-closeted psychiatrist testifying before Congress (Comics Code Authority), or now that it's SJWs/Feminists, it is still stupid and anti-liberty.

    You don't like to see/hear/read certain things? No one is forcing them on you! These days, the choices out there are immense, virtually infinite. Find what you like and leave the rest of us to find what we like.

  • EscherEnigma||

    See? This is more honest at least.

    My problem is none of y'all admit this upfront, and initially hide behind "stopping government action", when what you really want is "stopping action".

  • Mr Smeeth||

    Y'all can't be honest and just say "we don't like people caring about this issue".

    So you really can't see any other reason someone might object to this?

    Why are you even bothering with so many posts then?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Mostly I'm ending up with so many posts because I'm having to continually refute folks who say "you don't agree, so you must not understand".

    It's ironic, I know, but what can I do?

  • Mr Smeeth||

    Oh, sorry, I didn't see those posts, I saw botching about something you flatly refuse to understand.

    Please, continue.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @scarecrow
    See this? This is good sarcasm/parody. This is how you mock someone.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Let me dumb it down for you as much as I can.

    Government gets involved with X

    Libertarians: "Government has no business being involved with X!"

    Private business gets involved with X

    Libertarians: "That's a stupid business move, and I won't be surprised if the market punishes them for it."

    Note the sublte difference?

  • EscherEnigma||

    I understand the difference just fine, but you obviously don't understand my frustration.

  • MarkLastname||

    Frustration is a feeling, not an argument, so what is their to disagree with?

  • EscherEnigma||

    That "agree" and "understand" are different words, if nothing else.

  • Don't look at me.||

    It was all meant to frustrate you. Mission accomplished!

  • RenaD||

    Because your frustration is puzzling. What does not wanting the government to FORCE censorship on companies have to do with thinking that a company's censorious actions are ultimately bad for the consumer? Apples and oranges. Neither cancels the other out.

    So a private company makes a move it has EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE, and those of us who think it's DUMB, shake our heads and cancel our subscriptions. That's called the market, and it's actually totally in line with libertarianism, i.e. non-government intervention.

    Now is a good time to note as well that libertarians would also be pissed if the government made it illegal for Spotify to pull these artists.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't think there is any hypocrisy here. The hypocrisy would be if people here were demanding the government stop them. Having these cultural battles out in the open, away from government enforcement is the correct place to have them.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Having these cultural battles out in the open [...]"
    Like Spotify dropping artists they think are bad for the "culture"? Or a company's employees saying they won't work with/for a specific CEO? Or a boycott? Or sponsors threatening to break ties over a bad policy? Or people not going to a burrito truck because of what the owners did?

    Fact is, everyone we have one of these "cultural battles out in the open", y'all don't restrict yourselves to arguing government shouldn't be involved or that the other side is *wrong*. You try to argue that the "battle" is illegitimate and shouldn't be happening at all.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    I don't see anyone arguing that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's hypocritical about it? I also have no idea what's "self-serving" about it.

  • DesigNate||

    Nothing. Escher is just being Escher.

  • Tony||

    Somebody has to stand up to the librul menace, because there's nobody else to do it all over the internet and cable TV and AM radio.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    This comment perfectly captures what frustrates me about statists. Y'all get outraged about libertarians saying government has no right to do something, then extend that to libertarians professing outrage when companies do the same thing. It's almost as if you want everyone to think you're pretending to not understand the difference between coercive government violating rights and private businesses or people doing stupid things that hurt their own bottom line.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Who says it *has* to hurt their bottom line? The point is beyond your quibbling comprehension, apparently: government actions are coercive and monopolistic. Complaining about abuses of your freedom are right and proper. Complaining about a company making stupid decisions is just an opinion, and has nothing to do with rights. If the company is right, they stay in business; if complainers are right, the company loses customers.

    Get a grip.

  • Tony||

    There would just be a more consistent thread to your pro-maximum-freedom position if you ever thought to apply it to entities that weren't governments or progressive activists. Like, say, corporations. If feminists acting with absolutely no government imprimatur can damage your freedom, why can't Wal-Mart?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I think you misunderstand the pro-maximum-freedom position.

    No one says that a private business can't damage freedom. But you have every right to refuse to not spend a dime at that business, quit your job if you work there, etc. You try to do that with government and you are at best a tax cheat and a worst a traitor.

    If you think Walmart sucks, you can say so openly and never set foot in there. Good for you. Enough people agree with you, and Walmart will go the way of Woolworth and Howard Johnson's. But government never has to worry about that. No matter what they do, no matter how much of mess they make, they keep their power.

  • Tony||

    The whole argument about Wal-Mart is that it reduces consumer choice and availability of decent-paying jobs. That is, freedom.

    The whole argument about Big Oil is that it destroys the habitable environment. Also a component of freedom. And consumers don't really have a choice but to buy their product in most markets, do they?

  • ||

    The whole argument about Big Oil is that it destroys the habitable environment.

    I'd say you've confused 'habitable environment' with 'natural environment' but even that doesn't make what you wrote remotely true. It's pretty self-evident that the habitable human environment is as large and persistent as it's ever been.

  • gormadoc||

    In reality, habitable lands have increased dramatically in the last hundred years for the West and even more so in the last three decades everywhere else. Irrigation and land management have helped but the biggest increase is due to tall buildings and AC.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    "habitable environment"? For a moment there, I thought you were thinking in biblical terms of what man has dominion over. Whata weird way to phrase it.

    Businesses which behave badly lose customers, until eventually things get so bad that the only option left is bankruptcy, at which point their employees are freed up for better jobs, their assets are sold for pennies on the dollar, their investors lose money, and the economy and society are incrementally improved.

    Governments which behave badly just double down on the stupidity, add more stress to the economy and society, until eventually things get so bad that the only option left is revolution, aka "bankruptcy for governments."

  • barfman2018||

    The whole argument about Wal-Mart is that it reduces consumer choice and availability of decent-paying jobs. That is, freedom.

    No. Freedom means doing what you want. It does not mean getting what you want.

    *barf*

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    How does walmart destroy decent paying jobs? From the employer and stockholder perspective, their pay is far more "decent" than most other places. The lower the better. Zero dollars would be the most decent of all.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Walmart has 0 tanks, 0 aircraft carriers, 0 nuclear warheads and they aren't allowed to flashbang your house in the middle of the night and throw you in prison for refusing to patronize them.

  • MarkLastname||

    No one hear claimed they are damaging anyone's freedom.

    I know this is a hard concept for a Leninist like you to grasp, but "you're being an idiot and I don't like it," does not entail "you should be prosecuted for doing that." Saying the latter is illiberal; the former is not.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Another frustrating thing y'all do. You're very quick to "other" people, including your own, and assume all sorts of things just because of one disagreement.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Immune to sarcasm, parody, or whatever you want to call it, eh? Seems to be a stereotypical syndrome of nannies everywhere.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If that comment was supposed to be parody, you need to try harder as it's indistinguishable from sincere responses I've gotten 'round here.

    That said, failure to detect parody/sarcasm/etc is distinct from *immunity* to the same.

  • MarkLastname||

    Is that you new default response? Probably a step up from random drivel devoid of substance. "I'm frustrated libertarians don't like things but don't want to ban the things they don't like. It doesn't make any sense!"

  • gormadoc||

    idk, I've disagreed and verbally sparred with lc1789 and just sayin' several times and I don't really view them as much different politically from me. We disagree on certain things, but whatever.

    Maybe they hate me, but idc.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Dude, you just "othered" me!! You know nothing about me, but because you think you understand "my kind", I can be written off with a pithy stereotype about "y'all"

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Since you admit that you are alien to the people and views on this site, WTF are you doing here other than trolling? Say goodbye and slink away and leave the forums to folks who want to talk with like-minded persons

  • ThomasD||

    "private businesses or people doing stupid things that hurt their own bottom line."

    It's not just about them hurting their own bottom line. It is also that they can inhibit other people's ability to exercise their liberty. Which, we cannot prevent, anymore than we can prevent people from posting 'no trespass' signs, but we can encourage them to not be so restrictive when there are other alternatives.

  • Fredar||

    I don't think you understand libertarian position. Nobody has said that libertarians have to agree with everything private companies or individuals do, just because they are private. The difference between government and private companies is choice. If the government wants to use your money to do something, you don't have a choice. You can't just say: "Oh, i'm just going to stop paying taxes now." However if a private company does something you don't like, you can always stop using the services of that company. Notice that the writer of this article isn't demanding that the government should do something. He is just disagreeing with the company policy. That is not against libertarianism.

    I swear so many people have no idea what libertarianism actually is.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    They cannot conceive of individual anything. The closest they get is that individuals represent not-the-State, therefore damage, therefore must be corrected. Individuals having rights is no more comprehensible that thinking that an individual piston ring has any utility; it is either damaged and must be recycled or repaired, or it belongs inside the engine.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I understand just fine.

    What you do not understand, however, is my complaint.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    That is because your complaint is a nonsensical logic pretzel.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, I understand that no one can compel Spotify to not do this. It's their business and it is theirs to do with as they wish.

    That said, we can still encourage them to do otherwise.

    If that encouragement takes the form of noting how stupid, inconsistent, and oppressive their approach is, then so be it.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Nobody can compel Spotify "to not do this", but it was pretty damned easy for Ultraviolet to compel Spotify to do it in the first place.

  • DaveSs||

    I haven't used Spotify in a couple years, but were I a consumer of Spotify, I'd be right and truly pissed that they are making their service worse in an effort to win 'woke' points.

  • ThomasD||

    If I had deep pockets I might consider it a business opportunity.

  • ThomasD||

    'Looking for the music you want to hear? We have that for you.'

    'We may sell music that promises salvation, but we aren't promising salvation.'

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    Overlapping interests. You mentioned the Venn diagram earlier. The defining ideological interest of libertarians is in preventing government censorship, as you mentioned. However, this does not preclude them from having other personal interests and biases that fall outside of libertarianism. This is what you are seeing here. This is not a libertarian issue as it doesn't involve state interference. If the people here were/are complaining about these actions based upon libertarian grounds then they are wrong. However, I did not see this.
    It is entirely possible (albeit unlikely) and completely in-line with libertarian ideology to have a person here who defends spotify's actions and says it is entirely the right course of action. Libertarians can believe both, and disagree amongst themselves, since it is not a libertarian issue. Think of it like Sirius XM releasing a "Justin Beiber station". There would likely be a hailstorm of people disagreeing and criticizing the action, but there may be some who love it. Both can be libertarians.
    Your complaint then, is not with the people here as libertarians, it is with their personal biases outside of, and unrelated to libertarianism.

  • Baron Von Weinermobile||

    This is also the nice part about libertarianism, and the hardest for non-libertarians to grasp....unlike conservativism and progressivism, libertarianism is not an all-encompassing ideology. It is very simple and demands little in the way of agreement. In fact it is more methodology than ideology. We don't care what you believe, so long as you don't use force to accomplish it.

  • ThomasD||

    It is a minimalist framework intended to maximize liberty. There are governmental aspects, but there are also broader social aspect. In either case compulsion is to be discouraged.

  • MarkLastname||

    What frustrates me about leftists is their utter inability to distinguish between "you shouldn't be allowed to do that" and "even though you're allowed to do that it's seems like a pretty dumb idea," as though saying both is hypocritical.

    Maybe this is why you always jump from 'I don't like X' to 'let's ban X on penalty of prosecution.'

  • ThomasD||

    It is axiomatic among the left that once you have identified a problem, the problem is amenable to a government imposed solution.

    Libertarians, and some strains of conservatism reject this idea.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You better get out of there before Al comes home.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Come on, the image of someone posting a comment on here while having sex (with another person) is funny. Raise your hand if you are not guilty of never having stopped yourself from never not doing that.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Raise your hand was my nickname in the pokher room.

  • ||

    She must be furiously and fervently fingering herself.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hello.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'll be in my bunk.

    Oh wait, it's about Tipper Gore. Never mind.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No prophet is appreciated In her own time.

  • Eidde||

    "a lot of pop stars' escapades don't conform to modern norms of affirmative consent and gender equity"

    What do you mean modern norms? Even if we assume that marrying 13 year olds was a norm in the bad old days, the other behavior alleged was never considered OK.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Eh, a lot that we would call "domestic abuse" these days really did used to be "how a husband disciplines his wife". You can continue to find this in many parts of the world.

    And you don't have to go back in time at all (just other parts of the world) to find rape to basically be a crime against the woman's father/brother a with harm to her being incidental. This is part of the thinking behind "honor killings".

  • Eidde||

    One key impetus behind Prohibition was to keep husbands sober so they wouldn't beat their wives.

    Prohibition, of course, is a fairly extreme response, but that's my point - wife-beating wasn't just considered one of those things.

    And even in Inquisition-era Spain, a popular play has villagers kill a leader who tries to rape one of the women:

    "The third act opens with the men of the village meeting to decide how to handle the situation. Laurencia, having been beaten and subject to attempted Droit du seigneur (though she beats off her attackers and escapes) enters, but is not immediately recognized. She reprimands the men for not attempting to rescue her, inspiring the men to kill the Commander. While preparations are being made to hang Frondoso, the band of villagers enters and kills the Commander and one of his servants. Flores, the surviving servant, escapes and rushes to Ferdinand and Isabella to tell what has happened. The shocked rulers order a magistrate to the village to investigate. The villagers, celebrating with the head of the Commander, are told of the magistrate's approach. In order to save themselves, the villagers say "Fuenteovejuna did it". The magistrate proceeds to torture men, women, and young boys on the rack, but gives up after not receiving a satisfactory answer. Ferdinand and Isabella pardon the Grand Master and when the villagers enter and tell their story, they are pardoned as well."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Eh, a lot that we would call "domestic abuse" these days really did used to be "how a husband disciplines his wife"

    Rule of thumb.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    That's a myth. "Rule of thumb" actually means a rule based on experience or practice rather than on scientific knowledge.

  • MarkLastname||

    This is of course false. I don't doubt it's less punished in many places, but rape was considered an egregious crime against a woman in the Middle Ages (the Wife of Bath being a window into the norms) and in the 18th century William Blackstone notes that beating your wife was a no no. The idea that historically women were treated like housecats is a myth.

  • Eidde||

    10 out of 12 Victorian-era jurors agree - a boss who has sex with a girl who works for him has it coming when she kills him.

  • MarkLastname||

    Escher likely buys into the modern feminist fiction that men only learned to empathize with women in the 1960s.

  • Tony||

    Making musicians poor is no way to get them to stop punching women.

  • Don't look at me.||

    What we really need are more lawz!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Feminist Group Demands Spotify's

    Tells you something about our current state when a sentence can even begin with these words.

  • ||

    lol.

    Spotify are idiots.

    The floodgates are open. Think it will stop at TRHCP?

    Fucken stupid, virtue signalling buffoons run some of these companies.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It doesn't stop there. A fair number of rappers have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or some other violent crime.

    Something tells me as long as their victims were men, Ultraviolet wouldn't give a shit.

  • ||

    Eminem hit his estranged wife's boyfriend with the butt of his pistol.

    It did occur to me that all the accused were men. There's always the issue of separating performers from performances, but Rihanna's Bitch Better Have My Money seems like it should check off some checkboxes. And pretty much any of the leading ladies of classic rock (Joan Jett, Stevie Nicks, etc.) has some legally-questionable and/or predatory behavior in their memoirs/repertoire.

  • BYODB||

    Feminists are rather focused on one specific side in the man/woman divide, so it's understandable that this hypocrisy exists when their mission is to secure extra and superior rights for one gender (or at least this is what it has functionally become, if not in actual name).

    It's another reason why 'Feminist leaders' tend to loathe the transgender community. It explodes their narrative.

  • ||

    "In the morning
    Don't say you love me
    'Cause I'll only kick you out of the door
    I know your name is Rita
    'Cause your perfume smelling sweeter
    Since when I saw you down on the floor
    Guitar
    Won't need to much persuading
    I don't mean to sound degrading
    But with a face like that
    You got nothing to laugh about
    Red lips hair and fingernails
    I hear your a mean old Jezebel
    Lets go up stairs and read my tarot cards
    Stay with me
    Stay with me
    For tonight you better stay with me
    Stay with me
    Stay with me
    For tonight you better stay with me
    So in the morning
    Please don't say you love me
    'Cause you know I'll only kick you out the door
    Yea I'll pay your cab fare home
    You can even use my best cologne
    Just don't be here in the morning when I wake up
    Stay with me
    Stay with me
    'Cause tonight you better stay with me
    Sit down, get up, get down
    Stay with me
    Stay with me
    Cause tonight your going stay with me
    Hey, whats your name again
    Oh no, get down"

    Please remove.

  • Echospinner||

    Baby it's Cold Outside

    They hate that one.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Love hurts.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    So if this particular activism prevails, what exactly is going to be left? Virtue is just fine until it results in significant lost revenue. At that point the entertainment media will decide they've just gone too far and the artists accused will be reinvented as victims.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dig into the history of Norwegian black metal and you'll learn that members of such foundational bands as Burzum, Gorgoroth, and Mayhem have been found guilty of church burnings, torture, and murdering bandmates.

    Yeah, no one is ever gonna top Mayhem: murder, suicide, disembowelment on stage, etc.

    Also, what'a Dissection, chopped liver? Storm Of The Light's Bane is THE black metal album.

  • Len Bias||

    They should also remove Rage Against the Machine, since they sing/rap/fantasize about killing rich white people for the crime of being rich and white.

  • croaker||

    Get woke, go broke.

    Spotify will be gone in two years or less.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The beauty of the internet is that almost anybody can step in and fill the niche left by these companies that cave to SJW pressure. Spotify will die, but not because the demand for streaming music is gone, and someone will be there to fill the void.

    The amount of freedom that the internet enables is immeasurable. Why do you think China locks the internet down so tightly? Why do you think there's such a push for govt to regulate internet traffic (ie. net neutrality)?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Men are underrepresented on Ultraviolet's executive team. Until and unless they remedy this blatant sex-based discrimination, all right-thinking people should ignore them.

    -jcr

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Fuck you Spotify.

    Once you tried to signal virtue by taking some music off, the Nanny-Staters will demand more and more music be removed.

    Spotify deserves to die the bankruptcy death.

  • JeremyR||

    What, no Chuck Berry? He was into some weird shit. Literally.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    He couldn't quite singing about his ding-a-ling

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    What, Sweet Little Sixteen?

  • Banake||

    "Dig into the history of Norwegian black metal and you'll learn that members of such foundational bands as Burzum, Gorgoroth, and Mayhem have been found guilty of church burnings, torture, and murdering bandmates." - I just watched 'Until the Light Takes Us' today. :-P

    And wasn't Chuck Berry accused of being a peeping tom?

  • GamerFromJump||

    Why you should never compromise on speech, lesson #9736372.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Spotify just put itself out of business. Almost all rap and hip hop is anti woman even the rap and hip hop by women. And as far as the RHCP is concerned, to censor someone's music because of their bio, that's hilarious. They might as well end the Grammys forever.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Bitches ain't shit. Gs up Hos down.

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck you asshole commie rats

    I downloading every artist who you don't like just to spite your bitter commie rat ass hat mind.

    Fuck you each and every one of you bitter fucking feminazis commie ass holes ass hats

  • Agammamon||

    Eminem pled guilty to a weapons charge in 2001.

    Fucking millenials man.

    Christian, if all you can find on Eminem is copping a plea to a weapons charge - which 99.999999% of libertarians would say shouldn't have been illegal in the first place - then you've never heard any of his music, especially the early stuff.

  • Priscilla King||

    Ah, but was he confessing anything in those raps, or just artistically describing some fictional guy screaming "Die b*h die"?

    Whatever...I still think "Eight Mile Road" is a good song, and any site that bans it is a suicidal site...but then, on the presupposition that if the real Marshall Mathers knew anything about a real murder he wouldn't have been out there performing it, I also thought "Slim Shady" was a good song.

  • GILMORE™||

    Of course, you cover stories like this every week, of censorious left-wing narrow-minded political-correctness infecting more and more areas of life.

    ...and yet, when people start actually making any arguments against it - far more articulate and with greater popular success than yourselves - you write articles demeaning them as self-promoters who are just "rehashing old controversies"

    (never mind the new ones that keep popping up)

    pathetic

  • vek||

    All these companies are SOOOO dumb. Every single one of them needs to just say "We will do the minimum required to comply with the law in terms of speech in any country, and we will not censor anything beyond that. Period."

    Every time they do any of this shit they open themselves up to the moron brigade.

    As far as most of the underage girl stuff, 99% of the rockstar sleeping with teenage chicks stories are not really all that messed up. They're all post pubescent. I know of no stories where that isn't the case, although I'm sure some exist somewhere.

    The fact is that men and women both were typically married and popping out babies by their mid teens in essentially every culture in the history of mankind. There is nothing "sick" about thinking a hot 16 year old is hot. They ARE hot. They're just probably really dumb and annoying. LOL

    Now I haven't slept with a teenager since I was 20 or 21, and they were 18/19 or so anyway. I'm in my early 30s and wouldn't want to date anybody under 25 probably even. But I wouldn't kick a hot 21 year old out of bed for a 1 night stand either. So there's the physical thing, and the mental thing.

  • vek||

    Physically some 18 year old (legal in all the USA) is a baby making machine at the height of its powers, mentally they're probably half retarded still, but legal. 17 is also a daft baby making machine... Yet that'll land you in prison in many places if you're even 18. But what's the difference with a 17 year old banging tons of 17 year old dudes vs 23 year old dudes? Basically not a big dif between those scenarios. It's arbitrary.

    Europe and some states have far more reasonable age of consent laws. In Washington where I live it is 16, which is pretty reasonable, and graduated age gaps below that. The 18 strict line laws are nuts. I don't like true pedos who want to bang 9 year olds, but that's a whole different ballgame than 17 year olds. People trying to pretend a guy in his early 20s who finds a 17 year old attractive are "sick" are the ones who have the real problem.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    19-year-old guy has sex with 17-year-old girl who is his fiancé. He can be (and depending on jurisdiction) will be prosecuted for statutory rape. If convicted he will not only do whatever time the court decrees but will spend the rest of his life as an RSO. That downstream punishment far outweighs whatever the consequences of the original act were, and is a good part of the reason why attorneys defend these cases so vigorously.

  • vek||

    Yup. It's absolutely nuts. I can't imagine how horrible it would be to have that happen to you. Especially since chicks will lie about their age so often when they're teenagers! That happened to me several times, all of them still being legal since Washington state has sensible laws anyway. But if I had been somewhere else, and somebodies parents found out, I could have been a convicted "rapist" for life! Which is completely ridiculous.

  • Priscilla King||

    The screechers don't want to hear this even from a woman. They're right that population density demands that we discourage 15-year-olds from realizing that they are baby-making machines, but before they screech that anyone even thinking about indulging an excitable teenager "HURTS LITTLE GIRLS!!!!!", they should at least be required to find out how old their own grandmothers were at the time of marriage.

  • Mark22||

    How to treat the work of artists who have done terrible things is a difficult question.

    And it's a question individuals should decide for themselves, not companies or political pressure groups.

  • TxJack 112||

    Let the censorship begin. I knew this would be a slippery slope the moment it was announced. Amazing how far we have come from the days of Dee Snider opposing the PMRC in front of Congress to the willing and happy censorship of Spotify and others to protect us from "hate speech". This demand only illustrates the problem with censorship which is there is always someone who will label anything they personal find offensive as hate speech.

  • RenaD||

    Speaking of Snider, where are all the artists to protest this?

  • TxJack 112||

    I just cant wait until feminists realize "Star, Star" by the Rolling Stones from Goat's Head Soup in on Spotify. If you haven't heard the song, listen to it. Makes what they are complaining about seem tame.

  • ipsquire||

    "Every time a famous individual continues to be glorified despite allegations of abuse, we wrongly perpetuate silence by showing survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence that there will be no consequences for abuse"

    Are survivors as a group really unable to differentiate between allegations and actual (even if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt) abuse? That's pretty scary if true.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    It's untrue at many levels. Whatever Ultraviolet wants us to think, each "survivor" stands by herself (or himself) and makes whatever sense of the situation that she or he can. Regardless of what the liberal fascisti want us to think, they are not all part of a tsunami of "survivors" linking arms shouting #MeToo. Most are just getting on with their lives, as they should be.

  • ifthenwhy||

    Spotify just lost my family subscription.

  • ifthenwhy||

    Spotify just lost my family subscription.

  • vek||

    Make sure you email them and tell them exactly WHY you cancelled the subscription! Hurting the pocket book may well be the only thing that stops these stupid companies from doing this insane things.

  • RenaD||

    When you cancel, there's a box in which they ask you to explain why.

  • Publicnam3||

    Get a life! What does music have to do with your personal life? They just want a reason to complain about something! Typical women! Wine, wine, wine! Needs some crackers with that wine? Lol! Thats they're personal business, leave their music alone! What they do at home...anyway, how do they know those aligations are true or false? Again, get a life! Worry about yourselves, and your own personal life! Don't attack the music seen!

  • Wrath0fKahn||

    Apple and Google just need to get some interns started on filing take down requests for every unsavory song or artist on Spotify. Market annihilation has never been this easy or self-inflicted.

  • JuanQPublic||

    And here we go.

    The role of "moral arbiter" has been placed on everyone and everything, and if your moral positions are not sufficient, you are "part of the problem." You are also now guilty by association. As a human being, are also now a static, unchanging entity that should be defined by your worst transgressions, while your accomplishments, good deeds, and evolution holds no water.

    Dark times indeed.

  • gphx||

    Irony is when someone demands something be banned as hate speech because they say they hate it.

  • laportama||

    see below.

  • laportama||

    Sounds like Ultraviolet is a hate group.
    careful what you ask for.

  • RenaD||

    And do these women know what used to go on—and in many instances still does go on—backstage and after gigs at rock concerts? By that measure, no hard rock song would ever be played on Spotify.

  • TxJack 112||

    I cannot believe in 2018 we are again talking about censorship of music. I remember the PMRC attacking heavy metal in the 1980s and how Dee Snider of Twisted Sister destroyed them in front of the Senate Subcommittee. Censorship of any kind, for any reason is the first step on a very dangerous road. At some point, we, the people, have to stand up to these tyrants on the left and say enough is enough. If we don't then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we are no longer free.

  • RenaD||

    I'm surprised none of the artists have said anything about this.

  • RenaD||

    I'm surprised none of the artists have commented on this.

  • Priscilla King||

    Only the tip of the iceberg. Censors will demand censorship of material that might "glorify" taking drugs--so much for Elvis Presley and Billie Holiday. Some will scream for censorship of "leftist" content--goodbye, John Lennon, Merle Haggard, and possibly Earl Scruggs. Howls about "extreme right-wing" content will then write off the rest of Nashville and definitely anybody who's ever sung anything by Cole Porter. Some will demand emotional "protection" from religious content or musicians known to have performed religious songs, others from atheism and musicians not known to perform religious songs. In the end, if Spotify survived long enough--which it wouldn't--indulging demands for censorship would reduce the debate to "Basically I think this site should publicize only MY content."

    That might be useful. At least it'd show people what censorship is really all about.

    I've never liked Spotify anyway.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Assonant music is racist, genocidal, and part of rape culture. The twelve-note scale is a tool of oppression. Smash the staff. Ban the clef.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online