Yes. It would be necessary to live a modern life, given almost everything we use/eat comes from some unethical source. We abstain from the things that are important to us, according to our values. Lyrically if a song does not itself promote [terrible thing] then the music can be separated from an artist that does.

However if it is important to you that your listening does not generate income for those people, don’t listen to their music in apps (eg Spotify, who pays based on plays), nor on their official YT channels (which are likely monetised).

Also, be mindful that playing/listening to it around others is a form of ‘conspicuous consumption’, one of many ways our actions become ‘Word of Mouth’ advertising. This may lead others to believe you support the artists specifically, and depending on their values, they may be derisive or hostile. (Or, they agree with [terrible thing] and believe you are alike.)

Dual-weilding plushies

Learned about the band Jars of Clay when they were on MTV as a kid and thought they were pretty neat. Bought a couple albums ad a student. Still listen to them sometimes

I like Flood (more rock), Sad Clown (more chill), and Boy on a String (in between)

I think that social media (which is much broader than most people think) isn’t really the issue. It’s a tool being leveraged by the real danger. As you say, Lemmy hasn’t been bought and sold by special interest groups.

The way social media is leveraged is very harmful, but those groups are also leveraging other media (particularly the news). I would blame our ibcreased social division on the special interest groups that benefit from, and promote, social division.

IMO blaming social media itself for our woes is like blaming the ocean’s plastic on straws. It ultimately let’s the real damage continue while blaming the everyman’s suffering on their own consumption.

How do you reconcile that with how social media platforms like Lemmy allow people to collaborate across groups also? Or to educate?

Like, I do agree that social media plays a hugely pivotal role. But that’s because humans are social creatures with pliable perspectives and are reactive to the views of those we call our peers.

That means special interest groups can tell us what our views should be and sway millions, but it also means that small towns have always been extremely insular and would reject ‘out-group’ people, with or without social media. The ‘liberal redneck’ can only exist now because they can have contact with diverse and nuanced people outside of their local communities through online platforms.

I think humans have stunted relationships with their local communities in favour of fragile online ones, but I believe bad actors are leveraging the power of humanity’s propensity for community groupthink. Social media expands the size of our ‘tribes’, but it’s engagement algorythms that are enforcing echo chambers, to keep us on platforms in profitable ways. That is a property of for profit Capitalism, more than of remote peer-to-peer interaction.