But why would you say the spot itself is carrying the information? Suppose A and B have agreed that A will flip a coin, if it's heads he'll send a message to C who responds by sweeping a laser beam across the path from A to B, so if B sees the spot he'll know A's coin came up heads rather than tails. But in this case you could think of it in terms of C sending a bunch of separate messages to different locations with different photons, with the only photons relevant to B being the ones that were aimed at him. If instead of photons we imagine C sending postcards saying "HEADS" to a bunch of different addresses, isn't it only the postcard sent to B that's relevant to how fast the message to B traveled? We could imagine that the addresses were houses all in a row, and that each postcard arrived at each successive house slightly later than the previous one, but surely the speed of the imaginary "spot" defined by the position of the house that had most recently received a postcard would not be relevant to the speed the information in the message was traveling.
That's one way of thinking about it, although in some interpretations of QM there may be FTL "effects" that cannot actually be used to transmit information...perhaps you could say that if some event occurs at A, there is no way for B to learn about the outcome of the event FTL (unless the outcome can be deduced from other events in the past light cone of A which are also in the past light cone of B).
