5 ms·

> This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to

> This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to slop playlists? They are harmed because part of the intrinsic deal with Spotify is that you put your music on there so that their discovery systems make it possible for people to hear it who might not otherwise. If Spotify is deliberately diluting that mechanism it is bad enough. But they are doing it IN SECRET which they would not do if they didn't think artists, industry people, musicians unions etc., would construe that as harm.

surgical_fire 2y ago
This is a problem only if the actual users are unhappy with the music they are being served. If the music they are listening to satisfy their musical tastes for the monent, again, what is the issue? If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.
- throw646577 2y ago
  1) It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the value of the platform they believe they are being distributed on. 2) > If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message. Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff. If this was an official, named Spotify product, and users preferred it, then your anti-anti-slop argument might have some weight. Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded. That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice. So maybe I shouldn't be too surprised by (veiled as much as full-throated) endorsement of secret padding prole-feed.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the product they believe they are using. Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform? If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything. > Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff. Users are actively listening to those slop playlists. It does not seem to bother them (otherwise they would stop listening). If they are satisfied with the offering, what exactly is the issue? > Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded. This is plain bullshit. The claim is that people are listening to those songs when they are added to Spotify generated playlists. It wouldn't matter if the song had, say, a tag indicating that it was published by Spotify themselves. Most likely people are not even looking at the names of songs and artists when the slop playlist they are listening to is playing as background noise. > That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice. If you saw my comment history, you would be surprised. The problem here is that users are actively listening to slop, but they don't seem to mind it. They are fine with slop. They keep listening to slop. For those users, it really does not matter. There is no abuse taking place. I am a Spotify user. I think their app is bloated, but it works alright? I can find albums I like, I can create my own playlists, and I can completely ignore whatever Spotify generates I always did. How exactly are they abusive in their relationship with me as a customer? What you are really angry with is that Spotify found a way to give users that are fine with slop their own cheap slop.
    - throw646577 2y ago
      > Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform? > If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything. Then why does Spotify refuse to talk about it? It's clearly outside of the spirit of the deal they are striking with artists generally. Ultimately, they will get away with it because of just the same quasi-justification you're offering: Oh we're not screwing any of them individually, we are screwing them all at once. Congratulations I guess, your argument is on the winning side! But certainly Congress, the UK parliament, EU parliament, Swedish parliament etc. should be looking at this through the lens of regulation and competition law. And for once I hope the record labels -- big and small, because so many of them are small -- sue.

surgical_fire 2y ago

This is a problem only if the actual users are unhappy with the music they are being served. If the music they are listening to satisfy their musical tastes for the monent, again, what is the issue? If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message.

throw646577 2y ago
1) It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the value of the platform they believe they are being distributed on. 2) > If generic slop Spotify created to increase their own profits satisfies the listener the same way a song created with labor and love by an actual artist, well, this is saying something. I am not sure either of us will like the message. Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff. If this was an official, named Spotify product, and users preferred it, then your anti-anti-slop argument might have some weight. Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded. That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice. So maybe I shouldn't be too surprised by (veiled as much as full-throated) endorsement of secret padding prole-feed.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the product they believe they are using. Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform? If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything. > Again: users do not know they are being fed this stuff. Users are actively listening to those slop playlists. It does not seem to bother them (otherwise they would stop listening). If they are satisfied with the offering, what exactly is the issue? > Spotify are doing this in secret because they know it is fraud on likely a contract level but certainly on a cultural level. They'd be rolling it out with press releases if they didn't know it was underhanded. This is plain bullshit. The claim is that people are listening to those songs when they are added to Spotify generated playlists. It wouldn't matter if the song had, say, a tag indicating that it was published by Spotify themselves. Most likely people are not even looking at the names of songs and artists when the slop playlist they are listening to is playing as background noise. > That is the issue. But then again HN is a place where people really don't mind if companies break laws on an epic scale, destroy worker protections, and deliver worse products like AI chatbots replacing human support, if customers don't really notice. If you saw my comment history, you would be surprised. The problem here is that users are actively listening to slop, but they don't seem to mind it. They are fine with slop. They keep listening to slop. For those users, it really does not matter. There is no abuse taking place. I am a Spotify user. I think their app is bloated, but it works alright? I can find albums I like, I can create my own playlists, and I can completely ignore whatever Spotify generates I always did. How exactly are they abusive in their relationship with me as a customer? What you are really angry with is that Spotify found a way to give users that are fine with slop their own cheap slop.
  - throw646577 2y ago
    > Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform? > If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being defrauded of anything. Then why does Spotify refuse to talk about it? It's clearly outside of the spirit of the deal they are striking with artists generally. Ultimately, they will get away with it because of just the same quasi-justification you're offering: Oh we're not screwing any of them individually, we are screwing them all at once. Congratulations I guess, your argument is on the winning side! But certainly Congress, the UK parliament, EU parliament, Swedish parliament etc. should be looking at this through the lens of regulation and competition law. And for once I hope the record labels -- big and small, because so many of them are small -- sue.