Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

Shakespeare, it isn’t, but whether you’re a fan of the music of Taylor Swift or not, no one can argue with the fact that she has become highly successful.

With that success has come power, but how power is wielded depends on the person wielding it, and in Ms. Swift’s case, it comes with a level of bellicosity that see’s the so-called voice of a generation allegedly champion the rights of musicians, while at the same time being a hypocrite while doing so.

Nothing screams hypocrisy more than the curious case of Swift vs. Apple, Inc. over the weekend.

If you missed the drama, Swift posted a manifesto of sorts as to why she thought that Apple was wrong in not paying artists during the free trial period for Apple Music.

It’s not an unfair point: the free trial period is essentially a marketing period for Apple, and like any marketing ploy the costs should be borne by the company undertaking the marketing, not the suppliers of the goods that are being offered; a large retailer wouldn’t give away tangible merchandise for free for three months just in an effort to get people through their doors to try the store, and nor should Apple.

Late Sunday news broke that in direct response to Ms. Swift’s public calling out, Apple would indeed pay artists during the free trial period, a victory that you’d think should put the matter to bed once and for all.

Tay Tay picked a fight with Apple and won. She is a god.

— that grum guy (@grum) June 22, 2015

There’s one problem: it doesn’t.

Swift’s own words on the matter only show what a massive hypocrite she has become.

Specifically the following words:

I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music…

This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

In a pure tl;dr summation, Swift believes that people should be paid for their work.

Thing is, if Swift believes people should be paid, why are most of her songs not on Spotify (note, it’s a misnomer there’s no Swift songs on Spotify, there are actually four still available that are parts of soundtrack albums), when she could opt to only make them available instead to paying customers?

Why would she hold her album back at all from Apple Music where she could of instead simply opted to have it available only to those who are paying for the service?

Indeed, before Apple’s decision to pay artists for music played during the free trial period of Apple Music, why did Swift let all of her albums except her latest, 1989, appear on the service?

Lack of consistency much?

Swift rallies against Spotify’s “free tier” that actually provides revenues to artists through advertising support, be it not as much as the paid tier, and yet she was more than happy to let her entire back catalog of music, barring one album, appear on the completely-free-with-zero-payments trial period on Apple Music?

Oscar Wilde may have said “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative,” but likewise arguments are best led when the position of the person making the argument has some level of consistency, and doubly so when it’s clear she is discriminating against Spotify over Apple Music, despite her ability to be paid by both.

Haters may very well hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, but hypocrites are going to fail, fail, fail, fail, fail over the long term as people see through their inconsistent, flip-floppy positions.

Image credit: tonyshek/Flickr/CC by 2.0