I think she's well aware of the work record labels do, which is why she's leaving Spotify, rather than her record label. Her label supports her move 100 percent because they know that, for an artist who's selling what she's selling right now, this means more money in their pockets, too.

Why are you blaming Taylor Swift for that and not Spotify?

I may have Stockholm Syndrome from working there in my early 20s, but yeah, it's noticeably better than Applebee's/TGIFriday's/the rest of their ilk, and I don't understand anyone who tries to argue otherwise.

I think they took it off because it was single-handedly responsible for them perenially topping "the unhealthiest chain restaurants" internet slideshows. (Okay, maybe not single-handedly—but 3000 calories per onion. Seriously! I think Outback still has their version though.)

Even more ironically in this case, it has a history of racist policies towards its customers.

"Some of my best friends are rape victims!"

Distilling the Cosby comments into "celebrity sex lives" is really, really insulting to sexual assault victims. It's an important issue that affects at least 50 percent of the population deeply. It's not did-James-Franco-and-Lindsay-Lohan-hook-up bullshit. There's no parallel.

Every source? I'm not exactly referencing obscure knowledge here. If you google Cosby's rape allegations and "statute of limitations," hundreds of articles pop up saying that Constand—the 2006 plaintiff—was the only one still eligible to receive money. Barbara Bowman and Tamara Green have both mentioned explicitly…

Technically you're right, but Julie Andrews' version is the cultural touchstone for a much larger audience, and—at least if my Facebook friends' list was any indication—the desecration of that was a big reason why people tuned in last year.

I'm guessing this one will have fewer viewers, but its longevity kinda depends on how much fewer. Even if it pulls half as many viewers as the first, I think that justifies it for NBC—it costs about the same to make as a single episode of the Big Bang Theory, is pulling the same number of viewers, and held them for…

If Gawker is any indication (and it is), the overlords only care about the comment section insofar that more controversial articles equal more comments equal more refreshes equal more advertising dollars for them. Crazy-long comment sections with a ton of arguing is exactly what potential buyers would want. (It might…

The Sound of Music Live was also beyond stupid and still managed 18.6 million viewers, so I'm not sure I can chalk this one up to "network desperation" so much as "good business sense."

If it was a choice between getting yelled at by parents and absolutely definitely getting raped, then I imagine most people would pick the former no matter how horrible their parents were. But that's a false dichotomy. I'm sure she didn't go into the second time expecting to be raped again. One of the most horrifying…

There isn't any money at stake at this point. There was only one victim whose crime happened recently enough that the statute of limitations hadn't expired on it, and she received money in the 2006 settlement. The other women's crimes have passed the statute of limitations and thus they aren't eligible for any kind of…

No, it is actually not as possible as him being guilty. It's possible. But it's about a thousand times less possible than him being guilty.

Why does the the "potential ruination of someone's life" matter to you only when it affects someone accused of rape? Most women who take an accused rapist to court have their reputations shredded to bits and live with lifelong consequences of it—why isn't that a concern?

1. In this case, the statute of limitations for a criminal case had expired.
2. More generally, the burden of proof is significantly lower in civil court—you just have to prove that your story is more likely than his, not "beyond reasonable doubt," which would require a kind of evidence that is almost never present in…

It's highly likely that her perception of the initial event was colored by the subsequent event.Telling yourself that you made it up or misinterpreted it is an extremely common defense mechanism for victims of sexual assault. And I'm sure that was only increased by the fact that she had a drinking problem at the…

Nobody except the original woman who filed the lawsuit was eligible to receive money, because the statute of limitations on their cases had expired. They literally had zero reason whatsoever to go public with their stories, except to support the original victim.

I can totally buy Taylor Swift smoking weed in her house or something, but the girl is followed by paparazzi literally 24 hours a day. There's approximately a 0.0% chance that she could smoke anything in public without pictures of it ending up on the internet.