As digital platforms increasingly shape political discourse and cultural expression, they also bear growing responsibility for preventing the spread of harmful content. A report by the Washington, D.C.-based Centre for the Study of Organised Hate (CSOH) delivers a sharp critique of YouTube, Meta, Spotify, and Apple Music, accusing them of failing to enforce their own content moderation policies against hate music originating from India. Titled “Profiting from Hate Music, The Role of YouTube, Meta, Spotify, and Apple Music in Hosting and Monetizing India’s Hate Music Industry,” the report argues that these companies have allowed an ecosystem of hate-filled songs to flourish while continuing to benefit from audience engagement and monetisation,
The weaponisation of digital platforms to spread systematic, identity-based animosity. The findings outlined in the report raise urgent questions not only about corporate accountability but also about the real-world impact of inflammatory rhetoric masquerading as cultural expression.
According to CSOH, India has experienced a significant rise in hate speech targeting religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians. While hateful rhetoric has traditionally spread through speeches, rallies, and social media posts, the report argues that music has emerged as a powerful new instrument of ideological mobilisation. It identifies a genre commonly referred to as Hindutva pop or H-Pop, which allegedly glorifies Hindu nationalist ideology while portraying minorities as enemies of the nation. CSOH contends that the emotional appeal of music makes these messages more persuasive and capable of reaching wider audiences than conventional political communication.
While hateful rhetoric has traditionally spread through speeches, rallies, and social media posts, the report argues that music has emerged as a powerful new instrument of ideological mobilisation.
The report identifies 523 songs across YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Meta’s Music Library that allegedly violate the platforms’ own policies by promoting hatred, dehumanisation, or violence.
YouTube is described as the largest host, carrying 210 songs created by 98 artists. Of these, 104 songs allegedly contain direct threats or incitement against Muslims and have accumulated at least 97 million views. Spotify reportedly hosts 109 songs by 53 artists, Meta’s Music Library contains 103 songs, and Apple Music carries 101 songs by 59 artists. CSOH argues that these figures demonstrate not isolated moderation failures but a systemic inability or unwillingness to remove harmful content.
One of the report’s strongest criticisms concerns monetisation. CSOH argues that by allowing these songs to remain available, platforms may generate advertising revenue, streaming income, and increased user engagement from content that allegedly violates their own rules. The report suggests this creates a contradiction between publicly promoting user safety and commercially benefiting from divisive material. It describes this situation as a failure of corporate responsibility rather than merely a technical moderation challenge.
Beyond explicit calls for violence, the report states that many songs rely on dehumanising language, religious slurs, and conspiracy theories portraying Muslims and Christians as invaders or traitors.
According to CSOH, repeated exposure to such narratives normalises prejudice, deepens social polarisation, and contributes to an environment where discrimination becomes easier to justify. Several songs, the report claims, explicitly advocate removing minorities from India and replacing the country’s pluralistic identity with an exclusively Hindu nation.
The findings echo broader international concerns about extremist content online. Researchers have previously criticised digital platforms for hosting white supremacist music in the United States, neo-Nazi propaganda in Europe, and extremist recruitment material in other regions. These cases have highlighted how recommendation algorithms can amplify controversial content because it attracts engagement. CSOH argues that India’s alleged hate music ecosystem reflects a similar pattern, raising questions about whether technology companies apply moderation standards consistently across languages and regions.
The report recommends stronger enforcement of existing platform policies, improved moderation in regional languages, greater transparency regarding enforcement decisions, and the removal of monetisation opportunities for hateful content. It also urges companies to conduct regular audits of recommendation systems to prevent algorithmic amplification of material promoting hatred or violence. According to CSOH, reform requires proactive intervention rather than reactive content removal after public criticism.
Technology companies often maintain that balancing freedom of expression with user safety is one of the most difficult aspects of content moderation. However, CSOH argues that speech encouraging hatred, exclusion, or violence falls outside legitimate political expression and should be addressed consistently under existing policies.
Although the companies named in the report may dispute its conclusions, the findings intensify scrutiny of how global technology firms govern digital spaces. By documenting hundreds of songs that allegedly promote hatred while remaining accessible across mainstream platforms, CSOH presents a forceful challenge to claims that moderation systems are effective. Whether its recommendations lead to policy changes remains uncertain, but the report has strengthened calls for greater transparency, accountability, and protections in the digital age.
The report concludes that India’s approach toward religious minorities continues to fuel domestic tensions and international controversy, raising serious questions about its commitment to protecting minority rights.
The writer is a journalist