Photo by Mihis Alex
As 2025 draws to a close, a growing number of artists and fans have been turning their backs on Spotify. The streaming giant, once hailed as the future of music consumption, is now facing backlash over issues of ethics, equity, and artist compensation.
The most incendiary controversy was that Spotify CEO Daniel Ek reportedly invested over €600 million into Prima Materia earlier this year, a venture capital fund backing various tech companies, including Helsing AI – a European defense startup working on battlefield technology for military use. This led to artists like King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Deerhoof, Massive Attack, and Xiu Xiu announcing that they will be withdrawing their music from the platform in protest. For many listeners and musicians, the idea that their subscription fees could help bankroll AI-driven warfare was the final straw.
The final nail in the coffin landed in October as users began to notice ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) recruitment ads offering $50,000 signing bonuses. ICE has faced backlash over the last two decades for its aggressive enforcement tactics, inhumane detention conditions, and a perceived lack of accountability and transparency regarding its inhumane treatment of detainees. Following these revelations, Spotify announced that it had no plans to pull the recruitment ads from its platform, issuing a terse statement that sparked a renewed wave of boycott calls across social media.
“This advertisement is part of a broad campaign the US government is running across television, streaming, and online channels,” Spotify claimed. “The content does not violate our advertising policies. However, users can mark any ad with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help manage their ads preferences.”
The discontent with Spotify runs deeper than politics. Among concerns over its shadowy ties to nefarious businesses, the way it determines which artists appear in its algorithm, and feeble attempts to improve its audio quality, what glares most starkly is how its pro-rata royalty model distributes most of its revenue to a small elite. Despite having over 225,000 professional artists on its platform, only around 0.6% of them earn over $1 million a year, according to MarketWatch, while just 4% make enough – around $131,000 annually – to sustain a full-time music career. On average, Spotify’s estimated per-stream payout is $0.003–$0.005 – one of the lowest of any music streaming platform. The Guardian has described the payout system as “brutally unequal,” with algorithms and major label deals amplifying a small fraction of top-tier acts at the expense of the rest.
High-profile acts like Sleaford Mods have spoken out against the platform’s model, urging fans to seek out alternatives that offer more equitable revenue sharing and better artist treatment. In an interview, vocalist Jason Williamson remarked: “It’s not going to pay, Spotify will never pay you ever, look at it. I’d be surprised if it did, you know.” Back in 2013, Thom Yorke posted a tweet stating: “Make no mistake—new artists you discover on #Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile, shareholders will shortly be rolling in it.”
So, where are people going instead? How do the internet’s alternatives stack up ethically? Do we have to pick the lesser of many evils? Conversations about decentering major streaming platforms have gained momentum, with many listeners reconsidering the dominance of Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music. While the latter two offer comparatively higher payouts and fewer ethically fraught investments, they still operate within the same corporate machinery that leaves many artists underpaid. Notably, SoundCloud, long lauded as a hub for the independent artist, has recently unveiled new promises of 100% royalties for artists. However, critics note that the extremely low per-stream payout means most independent artists will see little real financial benefit unless they generate massive play-counts, making the headline far more impressive than the actual earnings.
As the boycott grows, users are beginning to explore platforms that, instead of being slightly less morally dubious, flip the model entirely:
Patreon – Rather than a streaming service, Patreon offers a direct-to-artist ecosystem. Fans pay creators monthly for exclusive releases, behind-the-scenes content, and early access. It’s not a replacement for streaming, but it’s the most ethically transparent way to financially support independent artists, especially those with smaller but deeply engaged audiences.
Qobuz – A niche favorite among audiophiles, Qobuz focuses on high-resolution audio and album-oriented listening. It pays significantly higher royalties than Spotify and rejects algorithm-driven discovery in favor of human curation. While its catalog isn’t as vast, listeners praise its artist-first approach and transparency.
Tidal – Long marketed as the equitable alternative, Tidal offers one of the highest per-stream payouts in the industry and has experimented with fan-centered royalties that send a listener’s subscription money directly to the artists they stream most. Despite ownership changes, it remains one of the strongest ethical options for listeners who want mainstream catalog access without supporting Spotify’s controversies.
PLAYY. Music – One of the newest challengers, PLAYY. Music positions itself as a platform built for and by artists. With a generous revenue model, integrated artist tools, and a commitment to transparency, it has been gaining traction among independent musicians seeking fairer compensation and more control. 50% of all revenue generated from subscriptions is returned to the user in the form of tokens to purchase songs, albums, podcasts and samples from the artists that they support. Though still growing, PLAYY. Music represents a shift toward community-driven streaming platforms that prioritize artists’ livelihoods over algorithmic virality.
As trust in Spotify and large-scale streaming in general continues to wane, no single platform has emerged as the definitive replacement. However, collectively, these alternatives mark a movement towards a future where listeners can choose services that better align with their ethics, and artists can reclaim more control over how their music is valued. Whether by switching services, reducing reliance on the worst offenders, or buying music directly, listeners have real agency. In an industry where profit often outweighs principle, small actions – taken by many – can still make noise.
