Artists and Human Rights Groups Pressure Spotify to Abandon Emotion-Sensing Tech
A groundswell of concern is building against Spotify’s patented speech-recognition technology that could analyze users’ emotional state, gender, age, and accent to recommend music. A coalition of over 180 artists and human rights organizations has penned a strongly worded letter to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, urging the company to publicly disavow the controversial technology.
The letter demands a firm commitment from Spotify to "never use, license, sell, or monetize the recommendation technology." The signatories include prominent musicians such as Talib Kweli, Eve 6, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy Peaches, and DIIV, demonstrating the breadth of opposition to the technology within the music community.
Spotify’s existing recommendation algorithm is already known for its uncanny accuracy, but this new patent introduces a disturbing element of constant surveillance. The technology relies on an always-on listening device, raising serious concerns about privacy and data security.
Critics argue that the technology is not only invasive but also emotionally manipulative. By analyzing users’ emotional states, Spotify could tailor music recommendations to influence their moods and behaviors. Furthermore, the technology could discriminate against trans and non-binary individuals by misinterpreting their gender identity based on voice analysis. The letter emphasizes that such technology could exacerbate existing inequalities in the music industry by favoring artists who cater to specific demographic profiles.
"Music should be made for human connection, not to please a profit-maximizing algorithm," the letter asserts, highlighting the potential for the technology to dehumanize the music experience.
Isedua Oribhabor, U.S. policy analyst for digital rights group Access Now, a key player in the coalition’s efforts, stated, "There is absolutely no valid reason for Spotify to even attempt to discern how we’re feeling, how many people are in a room with us, our gender, age, or any other characteristic the patent claims to detect." Oribhabor emphasized that "the millions of people who use Spotify deserve respect and privacy, not covert manipulation and monitoring."
This is not the first time Spotify has faced scrutiny over this technology. Access Now initially sent a public letter to the company in early April, urging them to abandon the technology and provide assurances about user data protection.
Spotify responded on April 15, clarifying that it had "never implemented the technology" and had no plans to do so. The company argued that many tech companies preemptively patent innovations that never make it into final products.
"I can assure you that any products Spotify develops both now and in the future will reflect our commitment to conducting business in a socially responsible manner and comply with applicable law," wrote Horatio Gutierrez, Spotify’s head of global affairs and chief legal officer.
However, this response has failed to quell the concerns of artists and human rights advocates. The coalition’s letter reiterates that any use of such technology is "unacceptable," pointing out that Spotify "could profit from the surveillance tool if another entity deploys it." This highlights the potential for Spotify to license the technology to third parties, even if they choose not to use it themselves.
Gizmodo reached out to Spotify for comment, and a Spotify spokesperson referred them back to their initial reply to Access Now. This lack of a more definitive response has only fueled the coalition’s determination.
The coalition has set a deadline of May 18 for Spotify to provide a public response. While it is unlikely that Spotify will offer anything beyond their previous statement, the pressure from such a diverse and influential group could potentially sway the company’s future decisions. Publicly committing to abandoning proprietary patents for the greater good is not a common practice among major corporations, but the unique circumstances of this case could potentially lead to a different outcome.
The core issue revolves around the ethics of using technology to analyze and manipulate users’ emotions. Many believe that music should be a source of joy, comfort, and inspiration, not a tool for data collection and targeted advertising. The potential for this technology to be used for discriminatory purposes is also a major concern.
The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for the future of music streaming and the relationship between technology companies and their users. If Spotify chooses to ignore the concerns of artists and human rights groups, it could face significant reputational damage and potential boycotts. On the other hand, a decision to abandon the technology could set a precedent for other companies to prioritize ethical considerations over profit maximization. The debate highlights the growing tension between technological innovation and the protection of fundamental human rights, a challenge that will only become more pressing in the years to come. The fact that so many artists are willing to take a stand against a powerful platform like Spotify underscores the depth of their concern and their commitment to preserving the integrity of the music experience.
