It's unfair in that allowing multiple instances of the same song will almost surely lead to that song receiving more plays than it otherwise would due to how recommendation algorithms work.
I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
You have to actively accept the recommendations from the algorithm. If the algorithm ia recommending slop, and you are fine with it, actively listening to it, who was harmed?
> I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.
Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify. Spotify puts them in the front page, but they can be ignored.
If people are listening to those playlists and are satisfied with it, what is the issue?
If the consumption is genuine and not bot activity, I fail to see any wrongdoing on Spotify. If people like listening to slop, who am I to judge?
>If the algorithm ia recommending slop, and you are fine with it, actively listening to it, who was harmed?
Well that's the issue. I don't accept slop but it will sure keep trying to push it to me, no matter how many thumbs down and dislikes I throw at it. I'm still fighting all the stupid crypto recommendations from Youtube despite years of "I'm not interested in this" that I post everytime it comes up. In the end, the only proper fix was to remove my entire history.
Algorithms these days stopped even pretending they appeal to me, they appeal to what advertisers want you to consume.
>Nobody is forced to listen to the slop playlists generated by Spotify.
in the sense that "nobody is forced to use spotify, I suppose". But if spotify is the house and the dealer, spotify listeners have to go under a lot of friction to push back even if they don't like what is being dealt.
Consumers' time is wasted by slop (by listening to it, skipping it, expunging it from playlists, etc.) Musicians are harmed when their material is lost in a sea of slop.
Neither. I have no desire to work for Spotify. Never worked there myself. I do pay for their service. I find it okay, perhaps a little expensive.
You may think I am excusing Spotify, but I am not. At least not really. I am just completely unsurprised that people listen to bottom of the barrel musical slop as background noise and are okay with it.
Spotify was smart that they figured out to give people what they wanted in a way that costs them less.
But people in this thread act as if Spotify is committing a crime, using some very charged language. My approach is from another angle - if users are legitimately listening to crap, and they are alright with the crap they listened to, why are we making a fuss about it?
Spotify is a market. Markets have two sides. You're fixated on one side. Repeating my earlier comment, "I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace."
> if users are legitimately listening to crap, and they are alright with the crap they listened to, why are we making a fuss about it?
Your angle is "enshittification isn't illegal, peopel still buy it. Why complain?"
By deinition, complaints are always brought up by a minority. If we ignored that minority, we wouldn't have acts like GDPR and its offshoots. Nor recent enforcement on making it easy to unsubscribe. We may not even have physical consumer protections, like refund windows or false advertisement".
I don't think this is the most egregious act of dishonesty in the article, though. I think Spotify deliberately seeding this music into its playlists is a worse abuse of its position as owner of the marketplace.