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".
Is consumers are actually listening to is, I fail to see harm.
Musicians are harmed only in the sense that consumers don't mind listening to slop instead of listening to their music.