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

    • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I find it amazing how just generalized human thought is, that just because one false slippery slope has been identified as fallacious, that any argument about a slippery slope is therefore a fallacy and less valid. I do not think Humanity will be saved by the existence of any philosophy or movement, because we will always find some way to pervert the movement or apply the teachings in terrible ways.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious because they assert that the slope is slippery while providing zero evidence to support their claim.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, but the fact that slippery slope is taught as fallacy is a problem, because it creates bro dudes who do not actually debate or connect with the material, but merely want to fulfill their fallacy bingo card.

            I call this erroneous bullshit the fallacy fallacy. Which is the fallacy that labeling fallacies is all you need to prove your intelligence and win a debate it creates this scenario.

            “My doctor says I need to change my diet or I may become diabetic”

            The dude bro could then state that this is an appeal to authority fallacy, because our friend here is taking the doctor’s word for it. This conversation could continue and our friend here may say something like

            “My aunt ignored her doctor and died of cancer. I best follow my doctor’s advice regardless.”

            The dude broke then claim that this is purely anecdotal and is not real evidence of anything.

            Obviously this is an extremely ridiculous example, but I wanted to demonstrate what I was talking about.

            Pseudoskeptics are very dangerous people, but they get listened to simply because they are quick to denounce new age bullshit, and are very likely to not be religious. When in actuality, they are little better then your average QAnon member when it comes to being able to reliably digest information or worse, acting as a source of misinformation.