Spotify's ability to provide fast access to a vast song library has completely transformed the music industry. However, despite its elegant appearance and forward-thinking branding, it functions as a capitalist machine that puts profit ahead of justice. In addition to harming independent artists disproportionately—especially women and marginalized communities—this commercial model also shapes cultural views in ways that perpetuate gendered violence. In addition to controlling user preferences, Spotify's algorithmic biases amplify misogynistic content while marginalizing feminist voices. Examining Spotify's exploitative business strategy, the algorithmic biases that support gender inequality, and the psychological impacts of music consumption on perceptions of gender-based violence are all necessary. Feminist legal viewpoints on how the media contributes to the normalization of negative social standards must also be investigated.

Who Benefits from Spotify's Unlawful Corporate Model?

The foundation of Spotify's business strategy is an unjust distribution mechanism that underpays the very musicians who enable its platform while favoring big record labels. An estimated $0.003 to $0.005 is paid to artists for each stream; thus, even with 1,000 streams, a musician only makes $3 to $5. For the majority of independent musicians, particularly those who are subjected to institutional discrimination, achieving the $1,500 monthly minimum wage in the United States would require more than 300,000 streams every month. In contrast, other streaming services pay marginally more, with Amazon Music paying about $8.80 per 1,000 streams and Apple Music paying about $6.20. The music industry's wealth disparity is exacerbated by Spotify's agreements with major record labels, such as Universal, Sony, and Warner Music, which guarantee these companies the biggest share of streaming revenue.

Despite presenting itself as an impartial music distributor, Spotify's practices are far from impartial. Spotify uses music to gather information from its users to forecast and ultimately impact their behavior. The information is then used to refocus the creation of popular music. Music serves as a powerful data collection tool due to its profound connection to our emotions and sense of self. Because of portable gadgets and network connectivity, music consumption is becoming more and more commonplace. In addition to providing "music for every mood," Spotify aims to become ingrained in its users' lives to gather data at every turn. In the meantime, despite assertions that it has democratized and saved the music industry, Spotify's market share and influence force musicians to conform to its distribution model to reach listeners. Spotify uses its influence in the music industry to force musicians to create songs that work well within its organizational structure and directs listeners to its branded playlists, where it has complete control over the selection of songs.

How bias toward gender is reinforced by Spotify's analytics

Spotify is more than just a passive streaming service; it actively selects, suggests, and plays some music while blocking others. Gender inequality in the industry is largely reinforced by its algorithmic biases. For instance, Spotify's radio algorithms and playlists heavily favor male musicians, which supports market trends that give men more exposure, streams, and income. According to a survey, female artists are only featured on 25% of Spotify's most popular playlists, which severely restricts their ability to reach a larger audience. Mood-based sorting, where Spotify generates situational and functional categories to offer emotion-based context; and "Wrapped," a promotion that asks users and music producers to share their annual Spotify data, forming a self-referential, closed system around them for its data, as well as "Chill" playlists, which provide a symbol of escape from decision-making or meaning-making within the closed system

Additionally, tracks that objectify women or have sexually aggressive lyrics typically do well in terms of listener interaction because Spotify's algorithm promotes involvement. As a result, the site actively promotes this type of music. While feminist musicians fight for recognition, popular playlists such as Rap Caviar and Hot Hits usually feature songs that exalt male power and hyper-masculinity. Our views, feelings, and even actions in the real world are influenced by the music we listen to. Exposure to misogynistic songs has been repeatedly linked to a greater tolerance for gendered violence, according to gender studies and psychology research. Men who listened to sexually aggressive music were more likely to believe rape myths and think aggressively about women, according to a study by Tobias Greitemeyer and Peter Fischer.

Young people who heard sexist songs internalized negative gender stereotypes, which made them less sympathetic to victims of gender-based violence. Listeners who are repeatedly exposed to music that dehumanizes women may become desensitized, which lessens their emotional reaction to violence in the real world and normalizes such behavior.

Case study: music and hostility in the real world and how to reverse it

According to a 2018 study by the University of South Florida, listeners who were exposed to misogynistic lyrics in violent songs showed more aggressiveness toward women. Another example of how Spotify allows musicians with abuse histories to make money off of their work is the case of rapper XXXTentacion, whose songs flourished on the site despite accusations of domestic abuse. Studies have demonstrated that rape myths, which are frequently propagated by music and the media, are used to discredit victims in sexual assault prosecutions. These narratives have an impact on actual court cases. Due to its widespread reach, Spotify is directly accountable for sustaining these damaging narratives by promoting misogynistic content and stifling feminist perspectives, which helps to normalize the culture of rape.

Changes in policy, advocacy, and consumer awareness are all necessary components of a feminist response to these problems. Demanding algorithmic openness from Spotify is a crucial first step in making sure that the systems that make up its music suggestions are openly shared and made to prevent the unfair magnifying of misogynistic content.

 Supporting a user-centric payment model, in which musicians receive direct compensation based on their streams rather than relying on pooled money that benefits major labels, is another crucial strategy for ensuring that artists receive equitable compensation. Spotify might implement content alerts and restrict music that encourages gendered violence. Lastly, consumer activism is crucial; listeners have the option to support independent and feminist musicians, boycott exploitative businesses, and put pressure on Spotify to make moral changes.

The platform has changed how people listen to music, but it has also strengthened power disparities in the business and promoted myths that normalize violence against women. Beyond simple criticism, a feminist reaction must demand algorithmic responsibility, structural disruption, and moral consumer choices. Until such adjustments are made, we have to consider who benefits and at what cost each time we hit play.

.    .    .