this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
240 points (81.1% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
2932 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Drew@lemmy.one 135 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Yes, censor all the things. It'll certainly never be used against you.

[–] Thranduil@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I met someone who had such a thought about hatespeech and how you should be fined until I pointed out he and his friends call eachother retarded removeds on discord all the time and asked how much he should have to pay in fines. He stopped supporting the idea of fines

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Unfettered hate speech leads to hate crimes.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 61 points 1 year ago

If we want to outlaw tasteless and offensive music, we'll be here all day.

[–] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For an 11 year old to be so full of hate someone must be pushing an agenda on them pretty hard and in this case at the very least it ain’t the drag queens.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

I believe that if you grow up only around people who believe something you’ll believe that too before you hit puberty

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Guys, I hate it too. But we can't just remove every single piece of art we find objectionable. Yes, I am using the word Art liberally. Do you really want to live in that world?

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 1 year ago (22 children)

We can remove hate speech though, and conflating hate speech with "every single piece of art we find objectionable" is dodgy af.

[–] Pirate_lemmy_arrrrR@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Eminem has a lot of homophobic lyrics. Think you're going to get him removed? Music has always pushed the boundaries of what's acceptable. Sometimes that's a good thing, other times it's not. But I think an artists freedom of expression overrides your feelings.

[–] Jonna@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

There's homophobic remarks and there are songs that are nothing but homophobia from start to end.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

this is just a slightly repackaged version of the typical "If I cant say the N word then its a slippery slope and before you know it its 1984" argument freeze peach absolutists use.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Just checked. Seems like Where The Hood At by DMX is still there. Is this really any worse?

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly that song is absolutely wild and more wild that it’s just totally accepted as ok. Like it’s the homophobic anthem ffs.

[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It really is. The beat, the hook.. All great. It's a legit fantastic song if it wasn't for the absolute dog shit content of the lyrics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m old enough to remember when it was the Christians getting music they thought was offensive pulled from the public eye, not the other way around.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 year ago

They still do. Also, get actual books banned from public libraries.

Don’t let them distract you into taking your eyes off the ball with fake “BUT THE INTOLERANT LEFT” concern trolling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there is an argument to be made here, it’s whether or not the song calls for intolerance à la the paradox of tolerance. There’s plenty of pornogrind, slam, and other brutal death metal on Spotify that’s thematically horrific. While the subject is definitely about really sadistic shit, there’s no overt message to go out and do that or that there are classes of people that deserve that. If this is just bullshit biblical propaganda, whatever, slam is gnarlier than Lot’s daughters. If this is advocating for the removal of a class of people, it might be warranted.

I didn’t read or search for the lyrics because fuck driving traffic to this garbage.

[–] wsweg@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, there’s plenty of songs about murder/gang shit that is serious and encouraging it

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hmm... You know, every argument I can come up with about why that might be okay could be just as easily applied by the trans-phobes.

"Well maybe we need to consider whether people might actually act on it". In the case of gangs, they definitely do. Gang violence is as bad as ever. Meanwhile, I suspect this antitrans song will provoke far less action than some diss tracks.

"Yeah but it's somewhat of a cultural thing, if we take it away from them it's going to start a whole big thing"... Black inner city culture / white country boy culture... They'll both react the same way.

Is it just the quantity of it? There's more gang rap so it's become normalized? That doesn't bode well for what we can expect from these country folk.

Seriously, I can't think of a good reason why gang rap that encourages violence should be allowed while this isn't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They should thank you all for the free advertisement. I had no idea this was a thing until this thread.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] raptir@lemdro.id 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I listen to a lot of death metal including brutal death metal that has lyrics that many would find objectionable. I guess the key difference is that death metal is not expressing the views of the artist. Still, there are plenty of artists with objectionable views whose songs are not deplatformed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was trying to find the lyrics to the song and came across another one of his song's lyrics that is arguably worse

https://genius.com/Tyson-james-pedofiles-lyrics

I mean, holy shit "L-G-B-T-Q, Let God Burn Them Quickly" is one of the lines.

This guy's music should not be played anywhere.

[–] SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh but didn't you know that's just a slippery slope argument and he's really just a cool dude and who doesn't encourage hate or violence? /s

A whole lotta people in this thread who don't want to acknowledge that this dude is trash, no matter how good or bad their music is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

Spotify plays a fun game. They kept GG Allin's less racist songs, got rid of Skrewdriver. To be a fly on the wall in those corpo meetings.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I dislike journalism that gives you their conclusions, but not the evidence by which they drew the conclusions. Quoting a single word is not the same as quoting the lyrics and the context around them so that we could either agree with the conclusion or not.

Let people be damned by their own actions and their own words, no need to editorialize evidence.

Here are the actual lyrics https://genius.com/Tyson-james-2-genders-lyrics

Not a great take, not a great song, but where was the slur?

Also no reference to "demons" in these lyrics. Maybe I have the wrong lyrics?

[–] ioslife@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah I see where you went wrong. That’s the hit song 2 Genders by Tyson James. What this article is about is the hit song Still 2 Genders by Tyson James.

load more comments (1 replies)

Thank you for posting the actual lyrics. I agree with you, the song is cringe AF, but I don't see any slurs. A gender critical position is not inherently a derogatory position. The song seems to be arguing for two biological sexes rather than gender (identity) based on its language.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh man, those lyrics are cringe AF.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

I believe that restrictions on creative freedom are morally wrong, even if the intent is to prevent hurtful or offensive content. Art is meant to be provocative and make a statement after all.

That said after reading some of the lyrics, it is clear that this song is actually advocating murder via burning of queer individuals, which is both wrong morally and not protected speech under us law.

load more comments
view more: next ›