Spotify Banning Neo Nazi Music

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Indrasweb

I am talking about the morality of the company. They are quite correct to say they won't carry products (in this case music) that promote hatred and violence.

Unless you believe the simple act of being gay is promoting hatred then there is really no equivalence despite your desperate stretching to make a comparison.

Yet Spotify continues to host music that promotes hatred and violence against white people, against the police, against women... ??

And for Christians, yes, the simple act of being gay is promoting something WORSE than hatred. It is an affront to god.

You and I may disagree, but from where they are standing they have the full support and righteousness of the Lord of all creation himself.
From their point of view, there is no higher authority, there is no greater moral good.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
www.premier.org.uk...

From the article:

"The wording we requested was 'Gay marriage rocks! Happy engagement, Andy and Joe! Lots of love xxx"

Additionally, the case in Colorado where the baker refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding also "won’t make cakes depicting witchcraft, ghosts, and demons or sexually suggestive images"

dailysignal.com...

Therefore, one could say that his discriminating was not motivated by homophobia or discrimination specifically against gay people, but by his adherence to the tenets of his religion. Should he also be compelled to make cakes with sexually suggestive images or demons? Hell, why not both right? Who doesn't love a cake adorned by a bit of demonic buggery, with a buttercream frosting?


You agree that a Jewish baker should sell the nazi cake?

What if it was just a plain cake?

A few skinheads come into his Jewish bakery and say "hey we want to buy up a load of plain old regular unadorned cakes for our "kill all jews and 'n-word's Nazi buffet and sing along" at the weekend so, get baking big nose" and he is obligated to provide the party food right?

Cos it's just plain old cake with nothing on it... right...

otherwise.. TO THE STOCKS WITH HIM.... right?

In another article elsewhere it stated that the couple involved in the Colorado cake ended up getting their cake elsewhere which was a wedding cake with a rainbow on it... can't seem to find that article just now as there's TONNES of them online (as you can imagine).

Also,

The 'product' (in this case service) which Spotify sells is shop window space, they are a hosting service. They are refusing to sell this product to one group of people and not to others. That is exactly what you just said they weren't doing?

Could they also ban hosting anything by bands/groups with gay people in or trans people? Could they ban people who promoted liberal ideas? How about black people who talk about violence? How about women who talk about feminism?

You'd still be defending Spotify of course?

Fair and equal, equal and fair... right?

Spotify don't sell shop window space. If they did then the artists would be paying them not the other way round.

Many web sites don't sell products promoting liberal ideas just as many don't promote conservative ideas. Try getting a pro feminism article on an MRA site.

That is fundamentally different from discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality.

originally posted by: Indrasweb

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Indrasweb

I am talking about the morality of the company. They are quite correct to say they won't carry products (in this case music) that promote hatred and violence.

Unless you believe the simple act of being gay is promoting hatred then there is really no equivalence despite your desperate stretching to make a comparison.

Yet Spotify continues to host music that promotes hatred and violence against white people, against the police, against women... ??

And for Christians, yes, the simple act of being gay is promoting something WORSE than hatred. It is an affront to god.

You and I may disagree, but from where they are standing they have the full support and righteousness of the Lord of all creation himself.
From their point of view, there is no higher authority, there is no greater moral good.

Feel free to report such music to Spotify. If it breeches their t&C's they will remove it.

Some Christians may believe gays an affront to God. I see no particular need to humour their bigotry.

If they want web sites that don't 'promote' homosexually then they are free to and do set up their own web sites.

Feel free to report such music to Spotify. If it breeches their t&C's they will remove it.

Really? Do you really believe that? Honestly now? Do you think they'll remove every rap song that promotes hate and violence? Every metal song that has hateful lyrics? Do you HONESTLY think that they will do that, or do you think it's more likely that they don't give a toss about that and only want to appeal to the "think like us or else" crowd.

"Some Christians may believe gays an affront to God. I see no particular need to humour their bigotry."

Some people may believe white men are the route of all evil, that white men in particular are the cause of all the ills in the world today. I see no reason to humour them either, yet society is bending over backwards to accommodate those attitudes today are they not?

So, what is it that Spotify sells then? How do they make their money? I wonder if that may hold the key to this whole thing?
And whatever it's selling, it's refusing to sell it to a particular group of people it (rather suddenly) doesn't like...


"Many web sites don't sell products promoting liberal ideas just as many don't promote conservative ideas. Try getting a pro feminism article on an MRA site."

So they are free, as a business, to refuse content, or products, based on their own sensibilities? Fair enough. Is that being applied equally in all circumstances and for all people?

ETA: Also you completely ignored the rest of my post and focused only on the last few lines regarding Spotify's business model..

originally posted by: Indrasweb

Feel free to report such music to Spotify. If it breeches their t&C's they will remove it.

Really? Do you really believe that? Honestly now? Do you think they'll remove every rap song that promotes hate and violence? Every metal song that has hateful lyrics? Do you HONESTLY think that they will do that, or do you think it's more likely that they don't give a toss about that and only want to appeal to the "think like us or else" crowd.

"Some Christians may believe gays an affront to God. I see no particular need to humour their bigotry."

Some people may believe white men are the route of all evil, that white men in particular are the cause of all the ills in the world today. I see no reason to humour them either, yet society is bending over backwards to accommodate those attitudes today are they not?

So, what is it that Spotify sells then? How do they make their money? I wonder if that may hold the key to this whole thing?

How does society bend over backwards to accommodate them. Are you saying black supremacist groups are supported by society?

Music streaming services make money from advertising or by customers paying for the service.

They in turn pay money as royalties to artists. The commercial transaction is from Spotify to the artists. You are arguing that they should have to buy white supremacists music.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Your first link is from the U.K. Not applicable to U.S. laws.

Your second link doesn't say that the baker was specifically asked to decorate a specific pro-gay message on a cake.

Your skinhead example doesn't work, because the skinheads were being rude and disruptive (get baking big nose???). No one has to provide service to disruptive customers.

Yes, Spotify could decide to no longer provide pro-gay music or pro-feminist music or pro-liberal music.

You know there is a Christian music subscription service out there that won't play any anti-Christian music - they even won't play Christian-type songs by bands who dont live a good Christian lifestyle. All perfectly legal and non- discriminatory, because they don't turn away customers who aren't Christian. All are welcome to sign up to listen to the songs they do provide.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Well Spotify is the topic.

What point do you think I did not address? Ask a specific question and I will happily give a specific answer.

How does society bend over backwards to accommodate them. Are you saying black supremacist groups are supported by society?

Yes, absolutely.

Have you not seen the total double standards in action regards the behaviour of BLM 'protestors', have you not seen the enormous upsurge in things like 'black only spaces' (oh the irony) at universities or "white privilege/whitey is evil" classes at American institutes of learning?

How are you not able to see then that society IS bending over backwards to accommodate those certain attitudes, attitudes that would attract swift and brutal condemnation if it were other groups doing/saying/be having in exactly the same way?

Music streaming services make money from advertising or by customers paying for the service.

They in turn pay money as royalties to artists. The commercial transaction is from Spotify to the artists. You are arguing that they should have to buy white supremacists music.

That is a fair point.

So, what you're saying is that Spotify is a middle man for consumers purchasing music from artists.

The service they provide is not buying or selling but brokering then.

So, in fact, they are refusing to provide the service of brokering to a specific group of people, based on their own sensibilities... it's really only a minor difference between that and what we've already been discussing. The question of whether they are right to do that is separate from the question of whether it is ok for everyone to do that or not.

Kaylaluv:

Your first link is from the U.K. Not applicable to U.S. laws. 

I believe you're well aware that we are discussing whether it is right and proper to refuse the service based on your own sensibilities. Transpose then, if you like, the story in that article to an example or thought experiment in terms of the USA. Do you now accept that they are in their rights to refuse the service as it is explicitly a "gay wedding cake"? If no then please refer to my previous posts on the matter.

Your second link doesn't say that the baker was specifically asked to decorate a specific pro-gay message on a cake. 

I am aware of that. I included it as it provided evidence that he wasn't just some homophobic toss pot and was refusing not on the grounds of the individuals sexual orientation but because he was adhering to the tenets of his religion. I thought it was an interesting aside and worth mentioning.

Your skinhead example doesn't work, because the skinheads were being rude and disruptive (get baking big nose???). No one has to provide service to disruptive customers. 

Haha... I KNEW as I was writing it, that that would be someone's response. Ahh.. made me smile..
Of course, however, simply remove the insult, replace it with a polite "adieu", leave the rest intact and then have another look. I'm quite certain that you know full well that I inserted that for 'comic' effect and that it was not the thrust of what I was saying.

Yes, Spotify could decide to no longer provide pro-gay music or pro-feminist music or pro-liberal music. 

Thank you.

And would you defend them equally if it were so, or would you be mighty peeved and inclined to start an online petition to boycott Spotify.. .

Be honest now

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ahh ok, that's fine. You're not compelled to respond to everything I said, obviously. I just wondered if you had any thoughts on the rest of it. However, as you rightly say, the topic is Spotify.

Good.

a reply to: Indrasweb

No not like a broker. More like playing music in a nightclub where every customer is also the DJ ( best analogy I can come up with).

BLM are not a black supremacist group.

Acknowledging the concept of white privilege is not the same as saying all whites are evil any more than supporting feminism means you think all men are evil.

Are there some double standards to what is acceptable? Possibly some, however given years of state and social oppression ( some of which is still ongoing) then some push back is probably expected.

Still not comparable to the views of white supremacists.

Whether its music, flags, or symbols; these right wing extremists and their rancid ideas need to be hunted down and destroyed like the dogs they are.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ahh ok, that's fine. You're not compelled to respond to everything I said, obviously. I just wondered if you had any thoughts on the rest of it. However, as you rightly say, the topic is Spotify.

Not intentionally ignoring any points but on phone (and old enough not to find touch screen 100% intuitive) so may abridge my replies.

Happy to answer any points you think I have missed.

a reply to: Edumakated

Shouldn't be a problem for anyone but Neo-Nazis... right? After all Spotify should be free to decide what messages they support w/ their music library and which ones they don't, as a private company.

originally posted by: britishpatriot

originally posted by: aethertek
Good, send the nazis back to whatever filthy hole they crawled out of.

K~

When you shut them up all you are doing is infringing on freedom of speech.

I am guessing your one of those leftist guys who supports freedom of speech so long as you agree with what is being said and it doesn't upset you

Spotify is a private company; they do not have to cater to anyone's freedom of speech.

a reply to: Indrasweb

I am in agreement with U.S. laws which allow creative autonomy, i.e. one should not be forced to create any specific work of art. Also, Spotify is a U.S. company following U.S. laws, so let's compare apples to apples.

It doesn't matter what the baker's religion is when it comes to selling to the general public. If he sells white wedding cakes to straight couples, then he must sell white weddings cakes to gay couples.

Technically, I don't believe skinheads are a protected group when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. You are trying to bait me on this emotionally, but I am only referring to the laws as they stand today. I don't think the skinheads would have the same legal case that a gay couple would have.

I'm not defending anyone. I am talking about what the law allows. I am also stating that a baker refusing to sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple because they're gay is not the same thing as a music subscription service not streaming certain songs.

Would I start a petition to boycott Spotify if they stopped providing pro-gay, pro-feminist or pro-liberal songs? I don't know -- maybe, but that would be my right, just as it would be the Nazis right to do the same. I never said it wasn't.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't believe skinheads are a protected group when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

I mentioned this earlier, but can't recall which thread, but I would wager that if a skinhead/neo-nazi was denied service in a facility of public accommodation (restaurant, etc) simply because he was a neo-nazi/skinhead, he could very well win a discrimination suit.

That said, and I know you're well aware, I am absolutely sick of the false equivalency people keep bringing up comparing the gay cake thing to Spotify's decision.

A privately owned website with its own rules and terms of us is NOT a place of public accommodation.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't believe skinheads are a protected group when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

I mentioned this earlier, but can't recall which thread, but I would wager that if a skinhead/neo-nazi was denied service in a facility of public accommodation (restaurant, etc) simply because he was a neo-nazi/skinhead, he could very well win a discrimination suit.

Maybe, but I believe the laws specify race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation - NOT ideology.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't believe skinheads are a protected group when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

I mentioned this earlier, but can't recall which thread, but I would wager that if a skinhead/neo-nazi was denied service in a facility of public accommodation (restaurant, etc) simply because he was a neo-nazi/skinhead, he could very well win a discrimination suit.

Maybe, but I believe the laws specify race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation - NOT ideology.

Race, gender, nationality, orientation, true, but I doubt a person can be legally discriminated against for what he or she simply believes. That in itself would set a very dangerous precedent.

a reply to: ScepticScot


So, customers give money to Spotify, Spotify takes a slice and then hands the rest to the artist. That seems to me to be functioning exactly the same way as a broker, or an agent if you'd prefer. Middle man provides contacts and market exposure, client gets paid and has a bigger presence in the marketplace, consumer hands cash over in return for the product... seems pretty straightforward to me..
Perhaps not though. I can't make sense of the nightclub/self-dj'ing example, I've tried but I can't see how that works. I've had a long day so, perhaps I'm just being a bit dense.

BLM are not a black supremacy group? Wow.. Well, that depends on who you ask I suppose...

Btw... did you see the video at the BLM rally where the woman (a teacher of young children no less) was shouting about how whitey should hand over all their money, should grow and provide food for and basically wait in hand and foot, all black people? Did you see the enormous crowd gathered around her whooping and cheering and agreeing wholeheartedly? Just one example of many from that wholesome civil rights group..

Abyhio..
I used BLM as an example. I could have cited the folks that have variously suggested that people should go out and assault white people as fun or as a celebration, or that white people should have to pay a white people tax, or that they should be banned from certain places, or that they should have their access to places of learning or working restricted etc all because of the colour of their skin.

And those aren't just random nobodies saying those things, they're people in positions of authority, often those in a position to shape the minds of the adults of the future. And instead of losing their jobs (as any white person advocating taxing black people most certainly would) they're either praised or, at best, are met with 'tolerance' (in enormous inverted commas'.

The response is ALWAYS "well... you know...
given stuff that's happened before.... perhaps it's understandable".

Justification.


It's almost automatic, we've been beaten over the head with it so thoroughly ubiquitously, and threatened and intimidated so effectively when anyone dared to question along the way, that we now go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid applying the same standard to all the people, all the time.

That is absolutely bending over backwards to accommodate those attitudes.

So, out of curiosity, after another twenty years of 'affirmative action' (racial discrimination) and restricting the rights of white people in order 'redress the balance' (racial discrimination) and studies on how, just by virtue of being born white, you're a part of the problem (racial discrimination), will it be ok for me to say "what we really ought to do is go out and beat us some black folks to celebrate new years!"? And will you rush to my defence saying "Well, after all the crap he's had to put up with throughout his life, it's kind of understandable"?

I suspect not.