2017 was the year of the #MeToo movement and the Times Up movement. We experienced the full frontal exposure of sexual misconduct, harassment and assault in Hollywood, and an unveiling of the perpetrators. It was a tumultuous, scary, empowering and defining year for womxn, survivors and feminists; especially in the entertainment industry.

What these movements really did was separate the sympathisers from the persecutors, the allies from the micro-aggressive sexists and the genuine feminists from the #NotAllMen’ers. This distinction was made clear through the actions and stances taken by companies as well, and the reactions of businesses to misconduct allegations of their staff and associates. Good actions were taken and appropriate statements were made (by some) but it is becoming all too easy to see that most action taken is still just business. Had these movements not begun to hold companies accountable, abusers, aggressors, harassers and rapists would still be profiting from the industries that have protected them their entire careers.

Spotify removes support of artists guilty of blatant hate speech.

Two weeks ago, Spotify rolled out a new anti-hate speech policy. The policy, called the ‘Hate Content and Hateful Conduct Policy’, outlines that hate-speech is ‘content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual’ for reason of their religion, skin colour, gender, disability etc. CEO Daniel Ek has stated that this part of the policy is designed to target explicit hate content such as white supremacist bands.

Hateful Conduct Policy plays moral judge.

The contentious part of the policy, however, is the ‘Hateful Conduct’ section. This section outlines Spotify’s attitude toward hateful conduct as an attempt not to ‘censor content because of an artist’s or creator’s behaviour,’ but to ensure that editorial decisions reflect their values. The policy goes on to state that:

‘When an artist or creator does something that is especially harmful or hateful (for example, violence against children and sexual violence), it may affect the ways we work with or support that artist or creator.’

This policy attempts to begin some kind of conscious monitoring and responsible limiting of the potential reach and rewards provided to artists who may be guilty of such conduct. At first glance, this does seem to be a powerful and positive move from the world's largest streaming service but, in practice, it has proven to be contentious, problematic and generally an open, overflowing can of worms.

R Kelly and XXXTentacion first to take the brunt of the new policy.

As one of the first moves in line with this new anti-hate speech and conduct policy, the streaming service made the decision to stop the promotion of alleged serial sexual abuser and underage advantage-taker R Kelly through its playlists. This was the most high profile move. Another, younger artist XXXTentacion, who is accused of domestic violence but is yet to be tried or convicted, is also having his music removed from Spotify’s playlists.

To clarify, this doesn’t mean that the music is unavailable, only that the songs are no longer promoted through inclusion in Spotify’s own company curated playlists; one of the primary ways many users choose their listening material.

Kendrick Lamar, Spotify employees, users and commentators respond.

This move from Spotify rocked the boat in a major way. Arguments of censorship, Spotify’s attempt to play moral judge and the effects that the disproportionate criminalisation of minorities by law enforcement may have on this policy and its implementation were brought up. Responses included those from employees, users, commentators and artists.

Last week, Bloomberg reported not only had Kendrick Lamar’s team threatened to discontinue partnership in relation to XXXTentacion’s removal from playlists but Spotify’s own head of industry relations, Troy Carter, had threatened to leave the company due to the policy.

Lamar and TDE’s response has been described as dangerous in itself; Complex’s Kiana Fitzgerald discussed the repercussions of suggesting of calling this type of action ‘censorship’ at all, regardless of the fact that the songs haven’t been completely removed from the streaming service. The real issue, Complex argues, is that Kendrick and TDE is using his own music as a poker chip to pressure Spotify into compromising or rolling back a policy that at its core is morally positive and ambitious, albeit poorly executed.

https://twitter.com/iamstillpu... Carter’s threat to leave Spotify over the policy shows just how much the possibility of censorship and morally biased services can impact the perceived credibility of a company.

Spotify is in no place to make a judgement call of this type.

Where do they draw the line? Did they miss the point?

There is clearly a question to be asked: how exactly did Spotify select the artists who were removed from the curated playlists? To our knowledge, the most important artist removed were R Kelly and XXXTentacion, while there have been other more minor acts reported. But how these artists were selected and for what reasons remains unclear. The seeming reluctance to remove other artists charged or found guilty of similar crimes can surely only be attributed to profit. Where, for example, is the removal of Chris Brown? Brown, despite being guilty of brutally battering former girlfriend Rihanna (the proof of which many of us saw circulated online and could certainly not deny) received no repercussions.

Others have noticed the incongruity of these actions too. The Fader reached out to Spotify to see if Kodak Black, Famous Dex, Rich the Kid, Dr. Dre, NBA YoungBoy, 6ix9ine, or Chris Brown would be subject to the same policy rules. A spokesperson for the company responded:

"As you can imagine this is a complicated process with room for debate and disagreement, so we can't get into an artist by artist discussion. In general, we work with our partners and try to make decisions on a case by case basis." (Spotify quoted by The Fader)

Another commentator asked the same question on Twitter and, thankfully, included some white artists in the question as well:

https://twitter.com/joecoscare... is no moral judge, nor is it qualified to make decisions charged by race politics.

Certainly, Spotify is not the institution which should be making judgements of the validity of retribution already paid, nor should it be responsible (if not only for the sake of its own credibility as a company in the business of artistic material) for the judgement of artists credibility or quality due to personal conduct. A music streaming service is also not the type of institution qualified or with the breadth of expertise to address political issues surrounding the disproportionate criminalisation and incarceration of minorities and the systemic oppression that is responsible. There is a feeling here that these floodgates contain simply too many factors for a streaming service to address.

CEO Daniel Ek admits that Spotify ‘screwed up,’ rolls back action against XXXTentation.

Just two weeks have passed since this action was taken against R Kelly and XXXTentacion and Spotify CEO Daniel Ek has now rolled back some of the changes that were made in relation to the Hate Speech and Hateful Conduct Policy. Ek addressed the issue at Recode's Code Conference this week. CNET reported that Ek admitted Spotify ‘rolled this out wrong and could have done a better job communicating it.’ He went on to say that punishing individuals was never the intention and that the policy was designed to target hate speech. Ek basically said that actions against certain artists will be reversed and that implementation of the policy will be more carefully examined.

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

XXXTentacion will now be eventually added back on to Spotify playlists (no word yet on R Kelly). I guess this was inevitable, considering the threats from TDE and Kendrick to remove his music, although many questions that this saga has raised still remain unanswered. It remains shocking to me that so many people still support the likes of Chris Brown after the highly publicised domestic violence allegations against him. In saying that, I was happily ignorant of the charges against many artists I listen to regularly and am now considering my responsibilities as a consumer. I avoid buying products tested on animals for example, so why would I compromise my morals by supporting artists guilty of, say, violent or sexual crimes against womxn? A much more important and heinous crime.

These questions will continue to remain unanswered, but the discussion of removing support from artists guilty of violent or sex crimes has now been started, and for this, we should all be grateful. It is the beginning of holding abusers accountable for their crimes despite cultural and financial capital. This is another step closer to ending the perpetuation and glorification of rape culture in music, or the continued promotion of disrespect toward women that popular music has proliferated for so many years. There is also something to be said about the fact that, in order to avoid the slippery slope of censorship, individuals should be the ones responsible for deciding who it is they are comfortable with supporting.

For the time being, we must continue to educate ourselves and our peers on the conduct of individual artists, companies and people we support with our money and decide for ourselves whether the conduct of creators impacts our use and enjoyment of their content. The discussion continues. As do the internal debates.