all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 65 points 4 months ago (1 child)

They should have used a 💩 for the AI artists instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    Pfff, too late spotify. I've already switched to one of your competitors. Allowing AI "artists" at all is unacceptable. No sale.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    Which competitor doesn't allow them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Bandcamp

    https://blog.bandcamp.com/2026/01/13/keeping-bandcamp-human/

    And unlike streaming sites, you own what you buy, and the artist gets paid much better; you'd have to stream the same song 200+ times with a premium Spotify account to generate the same profit for the artist as just buying the song outright on Bandcamp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I'm using Qobuz. Seems alright so far, unless someone knows something I don't (totally possible lol)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I've been using Qobuz for a few months and it's pretty good. They had a rough bug a couple of weeks ago where some songs would stop playing and skip to the next one, but it seems to be resolved.

    If you go into settings, you can hook it to last.fm and get lots of cool listening stats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Qobuz still had a lot of music slop 2 months ago. They promised to clean that up but I'm not sure if they really did it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • allowing Palantir and supporting ice was my cutoff... I had premium for years...

    worse was how suddenly my playlists I listened to often, the songs started sounding different/wrong... turns out they were silent swapping them for AI cover versions...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    They've been using it as an infinite money glitch for awhile now. Make AI slop music and make a bunch of bots listen to it for the ad revenue. Nobody makes the music, nobody listens to the music, nobody listens to the ads, but Spotify gets paid. They'll never crack down on this unless they themselves have to stop. Until than, they'll just "assume" everything is made by people and play dumb when questioned.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Which is what I find crazy. That money comes from advertising which is not endless. How are the advertisers able to show any semblance of ROI when nothing is passing through? Obviously Spotify doesn't care if the proles voice their discontent. But how are they able to keep the advertisers from getting fed up with no returns?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    I think in business attribution is really difficult. Like figuring out why a click/purchase happened. It might be that these systems are so opaque and difficult to penetrate that nobody notices when hundreds of millions are missing. Or maybe the actual situation is a little different, like maybe real people do listen to AI music. I've heard a bit about that anyway. Though I've also heard about organized criminals combining affiliated artists and bot listens to launder money.

  • source
  • parent
  • I think that it is less about the ad revenue and more about decreasing the total proportion of streams that they have to pay royalties for. Spotify pays people to churn out AI music that they own, and they place that music on their popular playlists (to increase plus from actual listeners) and also have bot armies streaming it endlessly. Since royalties are not a fixed per-play fee, but rather a calculation based on the total amount of subscriber money divided by the total number of plays, massively increasing the total play count with music that does not require royalty payments means they pay out a lower proportion of what they take in each month.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    Just like the "verified" badge on Twitter eh?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    And how long until they start accepting money from people to Verify their AI created garbage?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Bahahahahaha.... Man. They still don't get it.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Fuck Spotify. I'll buy albums (drm free, mostly from Bandcamp), pirate, or go without.

    Today is bandcamp Friday, too. Bandcamp passes their cut on to the band.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago*

    Well okay then..and fuck Spotify anyway.

    The pirate life is the only way to be. Take to the seas mateys!!

    🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️ Yarr!! 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    How are they "verifying" that it's a flesh and blood human, and that the human doesn't rely on AI? No digital method would work. You'd need to visit in person and have at least one other human witness them singing or playing without internet access.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Does Linkin Park get a badge? Has anyone ever proven that Linkin Park is human? All their songs sound suspiciously the same...

    What about Nickelback?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Absolutely fucked up and they have no clue.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I only care about this if they also have the functionality to block them from being recommended in any algorithms, or better yet prevent anyone from listening to it at all

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (4 children)

    or better yet prevent anyone from listening to it at all

    So you're advocating for top down control when it comes to consumption of online media?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Avoiding ai content isn't exactly a choice I can make currently. On virtually every streaming app, if I use any kind of recommendation or auto play function, ai comes up. Because AI music creators tend to release literally thousands of songs vs human creators who release a handful, even if the algorithms are randomized between available options, it skews heavily towards ai content.

    So, yes, I want the owners of those platforms to remove the AI content altogether rather than just put a small icon in the corner of the song name or whatever.

    Letting users choose for themselves isn't exactly what is happening. Forced feeding of garbage would be more accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Giving users the option to hide AI content if they don't want to see it would be the sensible way to go. However, you advocating for something to be disabled for everyone just because you don't like it is forcibly pushing your ideology to others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I would be totally fine with that. I suppose you are right and that's a fair call out. I think I just don't personally know anyone who would volunteer to receive AI content on their algorithms if they had a choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    See, that's how you make actual users buy the badges. Now to be considered not AI you have to put money up. Who wins? Spotify does. And they don't even have to make verification all that thorough, just enough to say they tried to filter out the worst of the bots.

  • source