First, that Spotify doesn't make clear when a track is produced by a Spotify "ghost artist".
And second, Spotify is in an unfair position as both the controller of the marketplace/platform, and as a participant on it. The allegation in this article is that Spotify are using their platform position to promote their own PFC program tracks over third party artists/labels.
To be clear, it's not necessarily consumers who are being harmed here. These tracks are supposedly targeted to cases where the consumer doesn't really care that much about the songs that are being played. Rather the party harmed are third party artists/labels who are competing for Spotify playlist space on an uneven playing field.
> And second, Spotify is in an unfair position as both the controller of the marketplace/platform, and as a participant on it
GP asked how it was different from what Walmart or Amazon are doing, but what you describe is precisely the same as what Walmart and Amazon do. I go to my local Kroger and there are a bunch of Kroger brand knock offs of the “name brand” stuff, being promoted heavily. Kroger makes more money off that stuff because they don’t have to split the profits. Nobody’s complaining that this is unfair.
Your point #1 still stands though, and if the slop in question was clearly labeled as “spotify originals” or something and was something you could easily filter out, I’m sure far fewer people would have an issue with it. The issue is the deception, not that they are pushing their own slop on people.
Third: Spotify has been involved again and again in various outright criminal enterprises like money laundering. Organized crime is rising strongly in Sweden, we don't need Spotify to back them.
The consumer is harmed if they are given the impression that playlists contain tracks voted up by other listeners like themselves, when in fact they are voted up by Spotify. Not sure if this is the case but if so, it would be clearly misleading the users.
