Introduction: The Promise vs The Reality

They promised us creative freedom. Democratization. Tools to compete with major labels straight from our bedrooms. Direct access to fans without gatekeepers.

Instead we got algorithmic payola. Subscription money funding weapons. AI flooding the market while platforms selectively enforce rules.

Cory Doctorow coined “enshittification” to describe how platforms inevitably decay. It’s a pattern. And in 2024-2025 it accelerated across every layer of music production.

This isn’t theory. This is documented reality with receipts.

Part 1: Spotify Gets Sued for “Modern Payola”

November 2025: Manhattan Federal Court

Spotify got hit with a class action lawsuit in Manhattan federal court. The charge? “Modern payola.”

Discovery Mode’s been around since 2020. The pitch was simple. Flag your priority tracks, get algorithmic consideration for Radio, Autoplay, and certain Mixes.

The cost? Accept a 30% royalty cut. Maybe more.

Think about that. You’re already making $0.003 to $0.005 per stream. Now Spotify wants you to accept 30% less just for a chance at visibility you used to get organically.

The Lawsuit Claims

The lawsuit claims Spotify’s selling playlist placements through “undisclosed promotional deals.” They call it personalized recommendations. The lawsuit calls it deception.

Lead plaintiff Genevieve Capolongo says her Discovery Mode playlists kept featuring Justin Bieber and Drake. Artists she doesn’t listen to. Artists whose labels can afford the 30% cut.

European Parliament Gets Involved

It got bad enough that the European Parliament stepped in. 85% voted for fairer revenue distribution from streaming services.

The Pattern

Classic enshittification. Stage one: Organic discovery worked. Stage two: Introduce paid promotion, kill organic reach. Stage three: Extract money from artists while lying to users about what’s organic.

Spotify’s defense? They called the lawsuit “nonsense” while simultaneously admitting Discovery Mode affects recommendations.

Part 2: Your Spotify Money’s Funding Weapons

June 2025: The Helsing Investment

Daniel Ek led a €600 million investment in Helsing. A German company developing AI-powered combat drones and military targeting software.

He’s not just an investor. He’s chairman of the company.

Helsing provides AI targeting systems for combat drones. Software for battlefield decision-making. Technology specifically designed to kill people more efficiently.

How the Money Flows

Here’s the chain. You pay for Spotify Premium. Spotify profits. Daniel Ek owns 9% of Spotify. His investment firm Prima Materia uses those profits to fund weapons development.

The Artist Boycott

Artists noticed. King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard pulled their entire 27-album catalog. Deerhoof said “We don’t want our music killing people.” Massive Attack, Xiu Xiu, dozens more followed.

The boycott tracking site documented over 50 artists who left the platform entirely. Not just threats. Actually pulled their catalogs.

January 2026: Ek Steps Down

Daniel Ek stepped down as CEO. Still owns his stake. Still profits from subscriptions. But the controversy forced him out of the public-facing role.

The Enshittification Angle

This is enshittification at its most literal. The platform extracts value from creators and listeners, funnels profits to shareholders, and those shareholders use the money for weapons while claiming they’re “democratizing music.”

Your subscription money. Their weapon contracts.

Part 3: Major Labels Buying Indie Distribution

December 2024: UMG Acquires Downtown

Universal Music Group bought Downtown Music Holdings for $775 million.

Never heard of Downtown? That’s the point.

Downtown owns FUGA, CD Baby, AdRev. These are the platforms independent artists used to avoid major labels. Now UMG owns them.

March 2025: Concord Acquires Stem

Concord, another major distributor, acquired Stem, a platform that promised artist-friendly splits and transparency.

Why This Matters

According to Luminate’s 2024 report, independent artists now account for over 50% of global streaming revenue. Half. The majors are losing market share to indies.

Their solution? Buy the platforms indies use.

Downtown’s CEO said this in the acquisition announcement: “The labels need access to indie artists. No one wants to be in the major label system anymore.”

Read that again. “No one wants to be in the major label system.”

So they’re buying the alternatives.

The Pattern

Classic enshittification cycle. Stage one: Indies build value through independent distribution. Stage two: Majors acquire the platforms once they’re established. Stage three: Alternatives disappear, indies get absorbed back into major label ecosystem.

Three years ago you had real alternatives to major labels. Now those “alternatives” are subsidiaries.

Part 4: Labels Sued AI, Then Partnered With It

June 2024: The Lawsuits

Universal Music Group, Sony, and Warner sued Suno and Udio for “massive copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale.”

Quote from the lawsuit: “The wholesale theft of copyrighted sound recordings.”

They claimed AI music generators trained on copyrighted catalogs without permission. Demanded billions in damages. Called it existential threat to human creativity.

October 2025: The Partnership

Sixteen months later Universal Music Group announced a partnership with Udio.

Not a settlement. A partnership.

The deal gives UMG a share of Udio’s revenue. UMG licenses their catalog for AI training. Udio gets legitimacy and access to major label catalogs.

They didn’t win the lawsuit. They joined them.

Sony and Warner Follow

Sony and Warner followed with their own AI licensing deals. Same companies that sued over “wholesale theft” now licensing the exact same technology for profit.

Independent Artists Get Nothing

But here’s the thing. Those deals only cover major label catalogs. Independent artists whose music also got scraped? No licensing deals. No revenue share. Just scraping.

The Pattern

Stage one: Fight the threat publicly. Stage two: Negotiate deals privately. Stage three: Lock out independent creators while profiting from the same technology you called theft.

From “existential threat” to “strategic partnership” in sixteen months.

Part 5: 97% Can’t Tell AI from Human Music

November 2025: The Deezer Study

Deezer partnered with Ipsos Research for a study. 9,000 participants across eight countries.

The question: Can you distinguish AI-generated music from human-created music?

They played tracks. Asked participants to identify which were AI. No context, just the music.

The Results

97% couldn’t tell the difference.

71% of participants were surprised when told which tracks were AI. They genuinely thought human artists created them.

The Market Projection

Goldman Sachs projects the AI music market will grow from $3 billion in 2024 to $68 billion by 2028. Meanwhile they project human creators will lose $10 to $10.5 billion cumulatively over the same period.

Selective Enforcement

But here’s where it gets worse.

Spotify artist “The Velvet Sundown” uploaded thousands of AI-generated tracks. No disclosure. Profile looks like any other artist.

Meanwhile Japanese artist Takahara Suiko got removed from Spotify in early 2025. Why? Suspected of using AI-generated vocals.

The difference? Takahara Suiko’s music was human-made. She proved it. Showed her recording setup, her process, everything. Still got removed.

The Pattern

AI accounts flooding the platform with undisclosed AI content? Totally fine. Human artist suspected of AI? Removed immediately.

This is selective enforcement designed to benefit whoever Spotify wants to benefit. The rules aren’t about protecting human creativity. They’re about control.

Part 6: The Pattern – How Platforms Extract Value

Let me connect all 5 examples.

• Discovery Mode: Kill organic reach, force payment, lie about algorithmic priority.

• Helsing investment: Extract profits from creators, fund weapons, step down when caught.

• Distribution acquisitions: Let indies build value, buy their platforms, eliminate alternatives.

• AI lawsuit flip: Sue publicly, partner privately, lock out independent creators.

• AI distinction study: 97% can’t tell the difference, but enforce rules selectively based on who Spotify wants to protect.

The Cycle

Every single example follows the same cycle.

• Stage one: Platforms need you. They promise freedom, democratization, fair access.

• Stage two: You build value. Music, content, attention, culture. You make the platform valuable.

• Stage three: Platform extracts that value. Paid promotion. Weapons investments. Acquisition of alternatives. Licensing deals that exclude you. Selective enforcement.

• Stage four: User experience degrades while platforms maximize profit.

• Stage five: You have no alternative because switching costs are too high.

The Timeline

Look at the dates. All six examples happened in the last eighteen months. This isn’t historical analysis. This is active, accelerating platform decay.

Part 7: What This Means for Producers in 2025

The Uncomfortable Truth

You cannot build a sustainable music career by relying on platforms that follow the enshittification pattern.

Every platform in the music ecosystem is designed to extract maximum value while providing minimum support.

The Strategic Shift

The producers winning in 2025 are those who:

• Own the relationship (email lists, direct sales, community)

• Control the infrastructure (websites, payment processing, content hosting)

• Diversify revenue (custom beats, courses, packs, services)

• Use platforms as tools, not foundations (YouTube for discovery, not income)

The IFEELVOID Approach

This is why IFEELVOID focuses on:

• Custom beat work ($500+ exclusives with direct relationships)

• Digital products (sample packs, courses, tools)

• Direct-to-fan (email list, website, Patreon)

• Platform arbitrage (use YouTube and X for discovery, monetize off-platform)

• I use platforms to find customers, not to serve customers.

Beatstars doesn’t get my best beats. Spotify doesn’t get my exclusive content. Platforms get the minimum required to drive traffic to my own infrastructure.

Conclusion: Enshittification Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The music industry didn’t accidentally become hostile to creators. This outcome was designed by the economic incentives of platform capitalism.

When a platform’s business model depends on extracting value from users, enshittification is inevitable.

The solution isn’t better platforms. It’s building systems that don’t depend on platforms at all.

Stay Blessed,

Void