> It just seems interesting to see so many people shilling for Spotify by nitpicking about what they think the word "fake" means. It's moreso that folks just d

> It just seems interesting to see so many people shilling for Spotify by nitpicking about what they think the word "fake" means. It's moreso that folks just don't like meaningless claims or unclear writing. The article's titled "The Fake Artists Problem [...]", so it seems entirely reasonable for a reader to want to know is meant by a "fake artist". Worse, near the end of the article: > Even the term fake artists doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the situation—because, as we have seen, it’s not the musicians, real or otherwise, who are at the root of the situation, but the dominant players in the industry. So the author doesn't clearly define what they mean by "fake artists", and then they point out that the term isn't even a good match for what they were trying to say. Which just seems to invite the question: if the author doesn't even like their own wording, why did they use it? I suspect that part of the problem is that the author's confused about what they're trying to critique. I mean, I get the sense that they're mostly just upset about music-platforms favoring low-cost content. But then they express that concern by instead talking about "fake artists", which seems largely tangential. But then they don't define what they mean by "fake artists", and even critique their own use of the term, making it just.. kind of a mess.