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 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.
The act of book banning itself isn’t the real issue. The issue is the homophobia/transphobia motivating the conservative book banning.
Removed by mod
Allowing fascism to spread is allowing censorship. Choosing not to censor fascism is choosing to allow intolerance to become mainstream.
You call for a utopia of free speech where even Nazis can live happily alongside the minorities whose deaths they call for. Such a utopia does not exist. It’s impossible. The fascists will go around to all other members of this “utopia” and by force coercion and indoctrination convince them to come together to murder the minorities. Then having done so they will censor all thought that does not align with their hatred and their conspiracies.
Tolerating fascism is the same thing as propagating it.
Tolerating fascism is the same thing as propagating it.
This is literally and factually false.
As bad as propagating it? Go for it. But you should be aware that making statements like you did makes it really easy for people to dismiss you offhand.
To use a trolley problem metaphor, what they are saying is not pulling the lever is the same as allowing five people to die. If fascism is progressing and you do not stop it, you are allowing it to progress. Whether you consider that propagation comes down to your ethical framework, but from a consequentialist view it is accurate
