✘ Why are we still using Spotify?

The rise of AI-generated fake artists; Discovery Mode’s hidden costs; Daniel Ek military investments; alternatives to start listening elsewhere.

Hi, how are you? Here Nicolas from FUTURX.

I’m not entirely convinced about digital boycotts or whether they really have an impact, but after many years I find myself seriously asking: why I'm still consuming music on Spotify?

On a personal level, I feel a bit liberated writing this. I ran a label for 10 years, starting around 2009, and worked in digital distribution for another five. During that time, I had to put DSPs at the center of every decision—success depended on them. I worked with many artists: Gustavo Santaolalla, Ca7riel y Paco, La Mona Jiménez, La Delio Valdez, and Juana Molina, among others. All of them, in one way or another, were exposed to the rules of platform positioning—especially Spotify’s.

That constant chase drained me, and I even stopped enjoying listening to music. My mind started thinking algorithmically (How long does it take for the chorus to start? Is it short or long intro, and is it longer than 4 minutes in total? Is the tempo too fast or too slow? Is the song's content likely to offend anyone? Is there an abrupt change in genre or style? What playlist would this song fit in?) —trying to guess whether a song would “perform” well enough to make it onto a playlist. At some point, I truly believed there were no alternatives.

Yes, it’s true: Spotify and the other DSPs are impressive, solid tech platforms. But… does that justify how music and its creators have been treated for so many years? In a system built around audience retention and attention maximization, music has been reduced to content, optimized not for artistic depth, but for passive consumption. Creators are rewarded less for their vision than for their ability to fit into algorithmic molds.

So what are the real issues?

Daniel Ek, Spotify’s CEO, deserves a chapter of his own. The latest? He personally invested €600 million in funds tied to companies that manufacture drones used in military conflicts.

Royalties are another major problem: scalability is prioritized over diversity. A recent IMPALA report shows how Spotify’s decisions directly affect independent labels and artists (up to 70%) through royalty caps.

Discovery Mode allows artists or labels to accept a lower per-stream payout in exchange for increased algorithmic visibility. While presented as a choice, in practice it reinforces the gap between those who can afford that “cost” and those who cannot.

Music writer Liz Pelly has documented how, in recent years, Spotify’s playlists have increasingly replaced music by actual artists with tracks sourced from sound banks—attributed to names that often don’t correspond to real people. These so-called “fake artists” aren’t there by accident; they serve a purpose in optimizing costs and fitting perfectly into Spotify’s mood-based, passive listening model. This is part of a broader strategy—sometimes referred to as “Perfect Fit Content”—designed to feed the algorithm what it wants, not necessarily what artists create.

In parallel, the platform has also been favoring other controversial trends. In recent weeks, we’ve seen the rise of The Velvet Sundown, an AI-generated project not created by Spotify, but clearly amplified by its algorithmic priorities. Type “The Velvet” into Spotify’s search bar and it ranks above The Velvet Underground.

The algorithms, which sometimes help us discover hidden gems, mostly just funnel us into a narrow stream of taste—a diet of digital junk food designed to make us keep listening, to avoid thinking, to stop us from wandering.

Maybe it’s time to admit that what’s “easiest” isn’t always what’s most fair.

We already know it: we live in a fast-paced digital model where cultural content—music, images, texts, videos—is constantly devalued on mass platforms. And this isn’t just about Spotify. Other platforms are following suit: Deezer recently revealed that 18% of all new music uploaded to streaming is fully AI-generated.

At the root, it’s a structural problem: behind the cultural content we enjoy every day are platforms whose priorities aren’t creativity, quality, or the wellbeing of artists and users—but maximizing listening time, consumption, and retention. We often focus on streaming platforms, but things are even worse on social media. #dopamineconsumption

So the real question is: what do we do now? Is a boycott actually useful? How many of us would it take to make an impact? Or better yet—what more effective and creative actions could we try?

Maybe there are no absolute answers, but there are certainly urgent steps to take:

– Diversify our digital consumption. It’s not about quitting Spotify entirely, but about exploring alternatives like Bandcamp (or the soon-to-launch SUBVERT), decentralized platforms, or more conscious listening models.

– Demand transparency from platforms on how they manage algorithms and royalties. Platforms should publicly explain how promotional tools like Discovery Mode actually work, disclose what kinds of content are prioritized and why, outline the criteria used for demonetization, and publish regular reports on AI-generated content (Deezer is leading the way here) and detected cases of fraud (this is very aligned with the points of the IMPALA report).

– Foster curiosity and curatorship. Follow content sources we actually enjoy—labels, artists, users, digital communities, and independent groups that create new listening spaces and alternative systems.

At FUTURX, we stand by one conviction: it’s time to pause and reflect on where we stand in this relentless digital ecosystem. That’s why we keep pushing for collaborative thinking and real alternatives.

If not Spotify, then where do we listen to music? How do we share it?

Maybe there’s no single answer. But there is a collective one. Alternatives already exist—the real challenge is making them viable, visible, and habitual. What certainly won’t help is pretending we have no choice. Because we do. And it’s up to us to start choosing differently.

---

LINKS

🧠 How to survive on tiktok (José Heinz)

“Algorithmic culture traps us in a loop: compulsively producing content just to remain visible, just to exist.”

✘ This piece invites us to read TikTok as an architecture of desire. Beyond trends and dances, it reveals how platforms shape subjectivity by turning every gesture into data. An essential read for thinking about how tech operates in our emotional and intimate spaces.

📊 Music tech report 2025 (Andrés Lauer)

“An analysis of over 150 companies: from generative AI to new monetization layers, rights infrastructure, and fan tools.”

✘ This report is a snapshot of the present moment. It shows which technologies are consolidating, who is leading their implementation, and what remains off the radar. A valuable resource for anyone working in music, technology, or cultural policy who wants to see the full picture.

👻 Velvet sundown and algorithmic transparency (Stuart Dredge)

“The Velvet Sundown surpassed 1.1 million monthly Spotify listeners. Then they updated their bio: ‘this music was created with artificial intelligence.’”

✘ No masks this time. The band doesn’t exist, but the experiment worked—it hit a million listeners before revealing it was AI-generated. What does that say about how visibility, legitimacy, and listening habits work on platforms? A case that questions the role of narrative and transparency—after success.

---

MUSIC

A recommendation from Chile: Camila Moreno just released La Primera Luz, an album that reaffirms why she’s one of the most powerful and thoughtful voices in Latin America. This track, “La piel”, cuts deep with both vulnerability and strength, carried by production that amplifies her radical poetics and singular way of expressing herself.

She’s an artist I deeply admire for her vision, her ideas, and the uncompromising way she brings them to life.