Talk:Criticism of Spotify

It seems as though the sole purpose of this article is to slander the name of Spotify. Written in a way that often avoids including related and relevant statements from Spotify such as those from the Spotify Community from Spotify Staff. For example, it has no mention of Spotify Staff saying that they think the Explicit filter is a good idea, but don't have it planned. ItsPugle (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, more like an ongoing editorial of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.30.251.1 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Spotify logo with text.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spotify logo with text.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989 I'm going to try to clean up the ICE criticism section. I'll try to make the changes small and explain each one. Let me know if there are any concerns. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for letting me know. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

For this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Spotify&diff=prev&oldid=1335563304

Based on the sourcing, Spotify ended the ad campaign before the Indivisible letter was sent.

According to the Guardian:

It also ended before Indivisible, the grassroots movements behind the No Kings demonstrations, sent an open letter to Spotify’s new CEOs, Alex Norström and Gustav Söderström, on their first day at work on 2 January petitioning them to drop the ads and make a public commitment to “reviewing and updating Spotify’s advertising policy to prohibit government propaganda and hate-based recruitment ad campaigns”.

I think the paragraph should reflect the ordering as described in the source, with the end of the ad campaign before the advocacy response. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Sharp eye, thanks for letting me know. I rewrote the section accordingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Spotify&diff=prev&oldid=1335568733 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

All look good except these two:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Spotify&diff=prev&oldid=1335556116
  • The sentence removed adds important context that Spotify confirmed they would no longer run ICE ads. That is not duplicative information and is perhaps the most important thing to include, other than the fact that they initially ran ICE ads.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Spotify&diff=prev&oldid=1335556427
  • The sidebar belongs. I don't understand how it's not relevant to section scope when there's a section in the sidebar specifically dedicated to ICE relations with the private sector and technology—Spotify being a tech business in the private sector with relations with ICE.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Added back "confirmed they would no longer run ads for ICE" per WP:SNOW Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Added back the sidebar per above reasoning, also per WP:SNOW. If you think it really doesn't belong and continue to contest it, please articulate why you believe it doesn't belong in this section and if it's a policy-based reason that addresses my above reasoning then I will remove it and only re-add it if consensus is achieved per WP:ONUS. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

On the first point. I agree that including that Spotify stopped running ads is appropriate. I just removed it initially to avoid repetition. Since you added it, I left it in place.

I think the link to the main article you added works much nicer than the large navigation sidebar in this subsection. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Removing the Forbes contributor makes sense per the policy you linked, and I reordered the last paragraph to make more sense chronologically. And the navigation sidebar adds a lot of related links to the section. We could remove the expanded parameter to cut down on the size if that's a concern, but I think including it in some capacity makes sense given the scope of this section. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would understand removing the sidebar if there was a brief mention, rather than a full section, on the ICE ads. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I get the reasoning, and I agree that the ICE context is relevant here. My concern is presentation than relevance, since the navigation sidebar is much larger than the content itself.

For smaller sections like this, I think a direct link to the main article provides enough context for readers to find more information without visually overwhelming the section. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)