Shame on you, Spotify.
Platforms have an ethical obligation to promote content responsibly.
As an avid consumer of hip-hop music, I have cultivated an unwonted tolerance for ignorance. Having been immersed in “the culture” since my upbringing, its distinctive attitude, fashion, and language have intricately woven into the fabric of my identity. Early on, I embraced the less savory tendencies inherent in hip-hop, acknowledging its potential for negativity. This acceptance became a prerequisite for navigating the intricacies of the genre. In fact, I find a certain entertainment value in its raw and unapologetic nature. However, even with this cultivated tolerance, there are instances that still manage to jolt the conscience, challenging the very essence of my appreciation. I’d like to call attention to a recent addition to one of Spotify’s popular editorial playlists, “Most Necessary,” which is curated by their team of playlist editors.
The song in question, “60 Miles,” is performed by a 9-year-old rapper named Lil RT. The explicit and profane lyrics of the song should raise eyebrows, not only for its content but also for the artist’s young age. While the hip-hop genre is known for its provocative nature, this performance by a child artist raises serious ethical concerns.
The lyrics, which include graphic depictions of violence and sexually explicit language, are incongruent with the responsibilities that come with promoting content featuring a minor. This leads to a broader question: does Spotify bear a responsibility for the potential harm to the child involved? I believe that the answer is yes. There is a time and place for explicit and provocative music.
In many ways, hip-hop is the soundtrack to my life.I celebrate the fact that artists can use their work to express their experiences and perspectives, while participating in positive economic activity. The genre’s irreverence, audacity, and attitude are a driving force. But when I consume explicit music, I do so as an adult with clear judgment, understanding that the content was produced by other adults. When the artist is as young as Lil RT, the line between artistic expression and potential harm is crossed. And I would argue that Spotify, by featuring this song prominently in one of their curated playlists, is complicit in the exploitation and potential harm of a child.
There are legitimate concerns about the impact that such content may have on Lil RT’s well-being. One cannot help but question whether the exposure to explicit themes at such a young age constitutes a form of child abuse. How does this young man even know how to say the things he’s rapping about? Clearly, the adults surrounding this child have failed him. But to intentionally promote this music on a playlist with nearly 2.8 million followers is an amplification of harm.
Spotify, as a powerful platform with significant influence, should be held accountable for the content it promotes, especially when it involves minors. While artistic expression should be respected, it is crucial to draw the line when it comes to the well-being of the artists, particularly those who have not yet reached an age of informed consent. Spotify is not the only platform that features Lil RT’s music and these other platforms share Spotify’s ethical responsibilities (eg. YouTube, Instagram, TikTok). But I am distinctly concerned that Spotify is intentionally promoting this song on a major playlist. This curation decision involved humans, not just an algorithm.
Spotify should immediately remove this song from its editorial playlist and from its platform. They are also clearly in need of a serious reevaluation of their ethical standards for content inclusion. The hip-hop industry at large is long overdue for a serious reckoning about the messaging that it promotes. And as responsible consumers, we also have an obligation to raise these issues about the line between artistic expression and clear exploitation.
