Spotify and Squarespace are cracking down on alleged "hate groups" and "hate bands"

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

(outside cuckada)

What is it with you people taking issues with Canada while posting on a Canadian owned forum for a Canadian owned media company?

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

What is it with you people taking issues with Canada while posting on a Canadian owned forum for a Canadian owned media company?

I'm not sure but I think it has something to do with Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

What is it with you people taking issues with Canada while posting on a Canadian owned forum for a Canadian owned media company?

You can use/like certain things from something, while still having an overall negative opinion about them.

I use a lot of products made in China but that does not mean I have to think it is a good country. Someone can like Russian vodka while at the same time disagreeing with their politics.

It's not black and white.

[rn8686]

52 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

buying a cake to share it a gathering of people sounds the same to me as nazi renting a space on Spotify to share their music to other ill-minded groups.

 

Difference is: one is a nazi therefore bad, the other is a gay couple therefore good. One is wrong thinking, the other is victim of wrong thinking.

Not wrong thinking, once again they are using the platform to spread hate. If all they do is share non-offensive or political songs/content then that is fine, but otherwise they are justified to cut them off. 

[suicidalfranco]

19 minutes ago, rn8686 said:

Not wrong thinking, once again they are using the platform to spread hate. If all they do is share non-offensive or political songs/content then that is fine, but otherwise they are justified to cut them off. 

okay, let's see one of the lyrics from this wrong thinkers... Bolzer i pick you

Spoiler

His tongue conjured up fire
In hearts of hope that did smolder
With words as clear as the wind
Blades sprang from ashes again

Dance!

Sermon of the crooked cross
The pulpits rock with death

Chaos chorus deafening
Sure-footed might-machine
Dance floors of human flesh
Syncopated until the end

His dagger like eyes
Left you limp in their stead

Blood! Weak is the pride in your veins
Master! Gives your fear a face that you can hate
Iron! Is the solution to the problem
Slave! Is what you are, confirmed in unison

Entranced by the wolfshook
Hypnotized by blood
Condemned to the wolfshook
Accomplice in blood

His psalms emanate power
Beset with lightning and thunder
As you slip into trance
You swear allegiance to dance 

seems like pretty average death/black metal stuff if you ask me. 

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, Mihle said:

I personally think the line of allowing or not allowing a site to exist should be if it encourages people to do something criminal or not.

Thats probably the most clearly line you could do.

(For example encourages to killing someone, or beating up someone, raping someone)
 

And yet, those rappers who advocated for the killing of Trump will likely never get listed as a "hate band" by these same people.

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

If they pick and choose who they host, that is definitely them implementing a political bias. This is such mental gymnastics to then disregard it being a censorship. The entire problem is that they are somehow held accountable for what they host, when it's not even remotely their responsibility unless someone is actually violating the national or international law on their platform. Like hosting child pornography. That is outside the bounds of laissez-faire, of course. But even then, it should be under warrant pending a police investigation. Not by peer pressure.

Companies should be free to deny service to whomever they choose, or that would violate their right to free speech.  However, it's a slippery road when we begin banning things simply because we disagree with them.

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Did the baker have the right to chose who to gives his service to? based on this thread and the one on google, yes. And yet the court said it was illegal for them to do so, funny right?

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

I think for that one, unless the gay couple live in a remote area with only one baker, they probably should have gone to other pastry shops. But then again, the gay couple have the right to write a terrible review on Yelp and dissuade people from coming. So yeah that's free speech in action. Bigoted baker has the right to discriminate the gay couple but the gay couple has the right to tell everyone that their bakery shop is owned by terrible bigots.

The thing that's not commonly known about this situation, is that the same gay couple came in for months before, and the bakery sold to them many times knowing fully well they were gay.  What the bakery did not want to participate in, was the wedding ceremony.  A ceremony is - by definition - a celebration.  They did not wish to participate in the "celebration" of a gay wedding.

 

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

okay, let's see one of the lyrics from this wrong thinkers... Bolzer i pick you

  Reveal hidden contents

His tongue conjured up fire
In hearts of hope that did smolder
With words as clear as the wind
Blades sprang from ashes again

Dance!

Sermon of the crooked cross
The pulpits rock with death

Chaos chorus deafening
Sure-footed might-machine
Dance floors of human flesh
Syncopated until the end

His dagger like eyes
Left you limp in their stead

Blood! Weak is the pride in your veins
Master! Gives your fear a face that you can hate
Iron! Is the solution to the problem
Slave! Is what you are, confirmed in unison

Entranced by the wolfshook
Hypnotized by blood
Condemned to the wolfshook
Accomplice in blood

His psalms emanate power
Beset with lightning and thunder
As you slip into trance
You swear allegiance to dance 

seems like pretty average death/black metal stuff if you ask me. 

Are those the lyrics of the song deleted from Spotify and iTunes? If yes, then it is pretty much normal heavy metal stuff which I think is pretty mild. I can think of songs that are worse than that.

[matrix07012]

30 minutes ago, rn8686 said:

Not wrong thinking, once again they are using the platform to spread hate. If all they do is share non-offensive or political songs/content then that is fine, but otherwise they are justified to cut them off. 

The definition of hate speech is so vague that anything that you don't like can be branded as hate speech.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they remove Rucka Rucka Ali from Spotify.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

Are those the lyrics of the song deleted from Spotify and iTunes? If yes, then it is pretty much normal heavy metal stuff which I think is pretty mild. I can think of songs that are worse than that.

yep, picked the group from the list posted in the source

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, Jito463 said:

The thing that's not commonly known about this situation, is that the same gay couple came in for months before, and the bakery sold to them many times knowing fully well they were gay.  What they bakery did not want to participate in, was the wedding ceremony.  A ceremony is - by definition - a celebration.  They did not wish to participate in the "celebration" of a gay wedding.

They probably wouldn't want to see their brand of cakes be used in a gay marriage

[Klovnious]

Hopefully they won't start to take down black metal bands. Hopefully my band will survive the purge lol.

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

yep, picked the group from the list posted in the source

That's kinda shallow for iTunes and Spotify to remove those songs with very normal looking lyrics. But then, I haven't tried to determine the context of the song and it's typical for musicians to put hidden meanings on song lyrics which is different from Backmasking; which made some songs from the 70s till 90s very controversial.

 

2 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

The definition of hate speech is so vague that anything that you don't like can be branded as hate speech.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: "Whoever would want to overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin with subduing the freeness of speech." 

[Brainless906]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

They are denying the platform not the ability to speak. .

This. a million times this. I said this on the google post as well but industries and business can pick and choose to offer business and services to whomever they please (within legally defined discrimination limits)

 

If a business doesnt agree witht he views of a group they can simple not do business with that group. This isnt censorship so much as capitalism. Have a startup company that runs on a platform of "we literally dont give a shit who you are or what you stand for" and it'll truly be a shining star of a capitalistic happening.

 

Freedom of speech is the ability to make the song, not the ability to force a carrier to peddle it.

[PlayStation 2]

4 hours ago, Notional said:

This is the biggest problem with tech companies becoming so large. They get way too much power. Even worse, most of them reside in the Bay Area, so the extremist ideology that flourishes there is now being forced upon the entire world. I guess that is the definition of bigotry: not accepting viewpoints and ideology of others.

 

This is a blatant attack on free speech. People don't seem to realize such a thing isn't a given, and all rights can be removed if they don't stand up for them. This is sickening.

Really couldn't have said it better myself. With Spotify pushing their agenda very blatantly with things like "I'm with the Banned" and that Pride playlist, it's quite obvious as to what they're doing.

[Brainless906]

14 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Really couldn't have said it better myself. With Spotify pushing their agenda very blatantly with things like "I'm with the Banned" and that Pride playlist, it's quite obvious as to what they're doing.

Then dont support them. I cannot fathom how a companies not agreeing with, and in tern not doing business with, a group has anything to do with freedom of speech.

 

In what world does Freedom of speech = a company must carry and sell a specific product?

 

This whole thing stinks of folks just getting offended just to get offended and crying censorship, all the while blaming "snowflakes" for being so easily offended.

This is America. The music has the right to exist, and vendors have the goddamn right to choose not to sell it.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

Then dont support them. I cannot fathom how a companies not agreeing with, and in tern not doing business with, a group has anything to do with freedom of speech.

 

In what world does Freedom of speech = a company must carry and sell a specific product?

 

This whole thing stinks of folks just getting offended just to get offended and crying censorship, all the while blaming "snowflakes" for being so easily offended.

I'm not crying shit, I'm just saying.

[AshleyAshes]

15 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Really couldn't have said it better myself. With Spotify pushing their agenda very blatantly with things like "I'm with the Banned" and that Pride playlist, it's quite obvious as to what they're doing.

Perhaps a large government organization to regulate and enforce content on large networks, ordering those private companies on what content must be provided to the citizens?

[captain_to_fire]

I encourage everyone to read this https://blog.avast.com/fighting-hate-and-saving-speech 

 

Quote

Similarly, laws against “extremism” may sound like a good idea in places struggling with radicalized populations spreading hateful propaganda and calls to violent action. But in Russia and other places battling authoritarian regimes, any opposition to the government is quickly labeled extremist and banned, from pamphlets to rallies to websites, with arrests usually to follow. Democracies are not immune to abusing such laws, it is true, but at least there is political recourse, debate, and a free media to push back.

 

Legalistic language that attempts to codify hate speech is not a true solution. Instead, we should aim for broad language that enshrines our overarching principles, which will be much harder for cynical regimes to subvert, and which will keep the door as wide open as possible for free expression and individual freedom—to keep the free world free. The best we can do to protect against truly hateful speech, while retaining the freedom of expression essential to human development, is to define and refine the moral framework of the society we want, online and offline. The specifics of what exactly can be said, where, when, and so on, will always be debated, of course. But it’s not so bad to have the Devil in the details if the angels are painting the big picture.

I think the article's author nailed it on what should be done. 

[Notional]

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

So not accepting someone else's bigotry is bigotry?

Ironic isn't it. Quite the paradox. But the entire point is that it's a slippery slope. You can't define hate speech. It's completely arbitrary and very subjective. What will you say when they start purging things you agree with?

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Denying spotify or squarespace the right to decide who they work with is not a free speech issue.  They have the right to express their ideals just as much as anyone else.

2

Music is very much free speech. Should private companies like this even deal in moral politics, to begin with? I think not. Obviously, they have a right to, but they are also neglecting the responsibility they have with the enormous power they hold.

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

I personally think the line of allowing or not allowing a site to exist should be if it encourages people to do something criminal or not.

Thats probably the most clearly line you could do.

(For example encourages to killing someone, or beating up someone, raping someone)

3

Sure. But that is a limitation set by the government/state, and thus goes beyond your rights. That's completely fair. 

4 hours ago, abazigal said:

But at what price to maintain your vaunted “free speech”? 

 

If that makes me a bigot, then it’s a term I will proudly bear. I just want my loved ones to stay safe and sound and if doing so means trampling on the rights on a few degenerates whom I really couldn’t care a crap about, let’s just say I will lose no sleep tonight over this. 

At all cost. Any society that oppresses people hit down hard on free speech. Those things go together. Of course, free speech doesn't cover things like terrorism, calling to murder people or similar.

2 hours ago, rn8686 said:

Not wrong thinking, once again they are using the platform to spread hate. If all they do is share non-offensive or political songs/content then that is fine, but otherwise they are justified to cut them off. 

Very much wrong think. Again, hate speech is arbitrary and subjective. They have all right to cut them off, but why would or should they even get into this moral political fight, to begin with? Now they are no longer neutral. They've taken a stance and a side, so now they are open to endless criticism. Why is this banned and not that?

[hobobobo]

The only thing i fail to understand is when did companies become people? People talk about bill of rights being apllicable to companies and it baffles me. My understanding have always been that individuals have all those freedoms and companies had none, outside of their registered activities. Its just retarded that a literal authoritatian social structure can be considered an individual. Or is this the fabled citizens united thingy? Coz if it is, its kinda astonishing how fast people came to accept such a ridiculous concept

[Prysin]

@hey_yo_

reformat the text in your quotes, its dark. Pain in the ass for dark theme users

 

ALSO

ill just leave this here, listen to it and you will realize that this set of news are just another piece in this puzzle.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/bGRXujFQbUtxT2dWTlhHRW98MU1ZeE5YRUxvblFHd_dCRJoYniIdc9ppBF-L6_iMfEdXYXV0DyN_ebJ2SSxi

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I wonder if any of the artists/songs blacklisted will be from non white supremacists, I doubt any of N.W.A.'s songs are going anywhere.

Nor are the black rappers that call for "shooting dem hoes" or "killin dat nigga" either.... You can say whatever revolting or violent thing you want, aslong as you dont vote Republican or support Trump.

[captain_to_fire]

21 minutes ago, Prysin said:

reformat the text in your quotes, its dark. Pain in the ass for dark theme users

I can't do that anymore. I'm on my phone and I'm about to sleep and I'm away from my computer. Maybe mods can do it. 

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

23 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

The only thing i fail to understand is when did companies become people? People talk about bill of rights being apllicable to companies and it baffles me. My understanding have always been that individuals have all those freedoms and companies had none, outside of their registered activities. Its just retarded that a literal authoritatian social structure can be considered an individual. Or is this the fabled citizens united thingy? Coz if it is, its kinda astonishing how fast people came to accept such a ridiculous concept

"its kinda astonishing how fast people came to accept such a ridiculous concept" Errr, Corporate Personhood has been a thing for literally hundreds of years...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

Literally, the first part of the Untied States Code states this:

 

Quote

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Corporate Personhood is a legal concept in most nations.  I mean, how could you possibly sign a contract with a corporation if it wasn't a legal person?  If not it'd have the same legal standing as a contract signed with a cardboard box.

[hobobobo]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

"its kinda astonishing how fast people came to accept such a ridiculous concept" Errr, Corporate Personhood has been a thing for literally hundreds of years...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

Literally, the first part of the Untied States Code states this:

 

Corporate Personhood is a legal concept in most nations.  I mean, how could you possibly sign a contract with a corporation if it wasn't a legal person?  If not it'd have the same legal standing as a contract signed with a cardboard box.

Well, there is corporate personhood in russia too but physical and legal enteties are clearly separated by the law, as in the law is not the same for them

 

guess ive been really ignorant on the basic concepts of the us, its kinda even more terrifying now