Spotify has removed offensive imagery associated with a controversial song by Christian rapper Tyson James and his 11-year-old son Toby James, following a complaint by GLAAD.
However, the song “Still 2 Genders,” criticized for its transphobic lyrics, continues to be available on the platform. Meanwhile, no changes have been made to Apple Music’s platform.
Earlier this month, The Advocatereported that the song was accessible on major music streaming platforms, including Spotify and Apple Music, despite its derogatory lyrics towards transgender individuals, including a slur to describe them. The situation caught the attention of GLAAD, which then took up the issue with Spotify’s trust and safety team.
In an updated statement provided to The Advocate, a spokesperson from GLAAD emphasized the importance of enforcing hate speech policies by companies.
“Companies have hate speech policies to protect all users from toxic content and especially from content that incites violence against marginalized people. When these policies are violated, it is important to see companies enforce them,” the statement read.
GLAAD’s statement highlighted the grave real-world implications of hateful rhetoric and imagery connecting it to a tragic incident.
“The terrible murder of Lauri Carlton, an ally who had hung a Pride flag outside her store, is connected to a suspect who had an image of a burning Pride flag pinned to his Twitter profile,” the statement added.
The spokesperson further noted, “Rhetoric, images, and targeting of LGBTQ people encourages real-world harms. Companies and brands must continue to recognize their responsibility to people’s safety and public safety and immediately act to avoid facilitating anti-LGBTQ hate and violence.”
Spotify responded by removing the album cover and video imagery that included a burning Progress Pride flag GLAAD noted to The Advocate. Despite these steps, the song itself, carrying an anti-trans slur and dehumanizing transgender people as “demons,” remains live on Spotify’s platform.
Both Spotify and Apple Music have policies in place to moderate content on their platforms. Apple Music for Artists’ terms of service stipulates that all lyrics provided to the platform must be “correct, accurate, and do not contain hate speech.” On the other hand, Spotify’s Dangerous Content policy bars “content that incites violence or hatred towards a person or group of people based on race, religion, gender identity or expression.”
Despite these policies, Apple Music has yet to make any changes or respond to inquiries regarding the song’s availability on its platform.
In a prior response, GLAAD had stressed the digital sphere’s struggle with hate speech moderation, especially concerning anti-LGBTQ+ content, which extends beyond the realm of music streaming platforms. Their concern was not only about the derogatory lyrics but also the inconsistency in enforcing content policies by these platforms, which undermines the safety and inclusivity of all users.
As the scrutiny continues, both Spotify and Apple Music remain unresponsive to multiple inquiries from The Advocate regarding this issue. This scenario underscores a broader discussion concerning digital content moderation on streaming platforms, especially around anti-LGBTQ+ content.
link: https://www.advocate.com/news/spotify-transphobic-song-glaad
archive link: https://archive.ph/tz9FX
I don’t know this song. I won’t listen to this song. I don’t care about it.
But it becomes a slippery slope when censorship gets blown up like this. I’d rather it all be on there and I can choose to not listen to it than for them to tell me what I’m allowed to listen to on their platform. Are they going to start banning Bloodhound gang or Eminem for homophobia and violence? What about Rotting Christ for anti religion? Dying Fetus?
It should stay on the platforms and collect dust instead of being shared by articles. I probably would have never even heard of this, but now I’m worried that some of the music I listen to will be collateral.
I mean, I agree with your sentiment, but I do feel as if we’re walking into a trap here.
Whenever there’s a push to remove bigoted or otherwise harmful content it’s always “censorship”.
When conservatives want to remove content they find objectionable they are “exercising their free speech” in calling for the removal.
So, no, I’m not going to pretend I’m some freeze peach champion when that rhetoric is exclusively used to harm me and the people I care about.
On the flip side, I don’t see how I can protest book banning and simultaneously call for song banning.
Yes, conservatives are hypocritical and morally bankrupt. That doesn’t mean I should be, too.
The act of book banning itself isn’t the real issue. The issue is the homophobia/transphobia motivating the conservative book banning.
The fact that you are referring to this as calling for song banning means you have bought into their frame lock stock and barrel.
Stop doing their work for them.
What is it then?
You are offering your views on a piece of art. The very essence of free speech.
You can criticize a piece of art without calling for it to be banned. This article calls for it to be banned.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Opening the post in the browser does show the word, so it’s lemmy.world that censors it for you.
It’s the N word.
deleted by creator
I agree, removing them automatically even makes moderation harder if they do it when federating because then the mods can’t see what they’re moderating.
It’s a frequent occurrence in Reddit that I read a typed out “Letter-word”, not knowing what swear/slur as the same letter could mean multiple different words in my regional English dialect.
What frustrates me is that words that could harm require effort to ensure the context is clear and respectful, people who just swap it with a Letter-word don’t care enough to treat what they are saying with importance.
I’ve previously asked what a comments letter-word was referring to as I couldn’t even find it via Google, the responses where downvotes and being told I should know what it means.
Hurtful words either shouldn’t be said at all, or if being referred to need to be treated with delicacy and respect as if their harm matters, saying them while not saying them is the laziest and most disrespectful way of handling that.
“Hurtful words either shouldn’t be said at all”
Where is this though? As a queer person, I’m not removing words from my vocabulary which refer to people like myself. Just as I wouldn’t tell POC to not use the n-word.
I meant in the case where it would be hurtful, obviously it wouldn’t be reasonably hurtful to say it in a context which it isn’t, that was the point of what I was saying.
I would say the same words if I had a reason to discuss whichever word, neither of us are directing it to a person with an explicit intent to cause harm.
It’s almost impossible to police that though.
deleted by creator
The slur filter on lemmy world is very limited. There is an f-word and an n-word. And the reason I added it to the slur-filter was because we had spam accounts posting PAGES full of these words. And even when that stopped we kept those two words in our slur-filter. As the times they would be used “academically” would be far less than their use as an insult.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it makes sense from a moderation standpoint. I know there’s been a lot of spam with slurs. I think it does hurt real conversations and I don’t like it but it’s not like it’s unjustified. It makes sense.
There are still ways to make clear which word you mean without using the actual word IMO. Glad I could clear things up a bit :)
If course there are. But if someone is unaware of the fact that a word is censored and still writes it, the conversation can be derailed into a discussion about which word it is and why words are removed instead. But those are things one has to weigh against one another.
Tidal is a great option. They even give the best pay per stream for artists compared to Spotify or even Apple music
Dance with the Devil by Immortal Technique
No it doesn’t. Last I heard Spotify isn’t a branch of government. Until such time as we nationalize them. They’re free to deplatform anyone and everyone they want within reason.
The problem is, they’re only out for money and have no moral compass. Combine that with the burgeoning fascism problem we have in the US for instance. You get this. There’s money to be made marketing and appealing to bigots and their ilk. And they’re gonna keep doing it till it costs them. Expect no meaningful action.
Feel how you want, but Spotify has a very clear policy on hateful content. And sure, maybe you won’t listen to it, but do you know who will? Bigoted psychos that will go out and commit a hate crime. Allowing content like this on a popular platform will lead to hate crimes. There is nothing wrong with private platforms choosing to not platform certain kinds of content and it is entirely within their right.
Spotify has the right to deplatfom hateful content and doing so is the ethical thing to do.
There’s plenty of really offensive music out there, and you can’t put one group on a pedestal and say ‘but these guys you can’t ridicule.’ … Except…
Thinking about it, the offensive music is towards people with bat-shit crazy belief systems etc, rather than criticising people for what they are. I don’t think I would be ok with racist music for example, or music that targets… idk, bald people, because it’s something they can’t change.
So actually, I agree, ban the song. Let’s go back to ridiculing Christians, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, communists, etc because those are all belief systems that people can change.
Simple, all it takes is to take the Book of Wrong Ideas, which is notoriously objective and shared across the world.