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

    • Thranduil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Steve
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Prohibition doesn’t make things go away. It only makes them more sneaky.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good, let them be sneaky out of the public eye. Let the proper authorities who monitor those channels do their jobs. No need for children or anyone else to listen to garbage.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fun fact: the German military sent someone to monitor the national socialist party to determine if they were a threat to the Republic. His name was Adolf Hitler.

        • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the end of the thought process. It doesn’t need to be removed, it just needs to be removed from their line of sight. As long as they don’t know about it, it doesn’t exist. Problem solved.

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree necessarily, but people can be intolerant of hate speech without the force of government.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The government was not in any way involved in this story. Its 2 companies and an anti-hate advocacy group.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some things should be censored, and I don’t think that’s too hot of a take, either. Any material that encourages intolerance of others should not be accepted in any civil culture.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Si_sierra@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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