[vintermann]

Yet another person who plays the bogeyman card of "conspiracy theory" when what is described is garden variety corruption, only takes a trivial amount of secret coordination in a group smaller than your average terrorist cell, and could probably even be defended as legal with a small legal team (Spotify probably has a big one).

There are a billion ways you could cash in on this. A dead easy one is "music written for hire by a company you own".

Even if Spotify is not doing the slightest thing like this, suggesting that they might is not a conspiracy theory. Quit trying to tar every proposed view of the world you disagree with with that label. You're just making it easier for the actual grand conspiracy theorists.

[troupo]

> Yet another person who plays the bogeyman card of "conspiracy theory"

> Even if Spotify is not doing the slightest thing like this, suggesting that they might is...

...textbook definition of conspiracy theory

Also note how your entire text is just unsubstantiated claims. Including emotionally charged words like "terrorist cell" that give your words so much weight and meaning.

[vintermann]

Your "textbook definition" is BS. A theory that someone conspires is not enough to call something a conspiracy theory.

You would not call a prosecutor who accuses someone of "criminal conspiracy" a conspiracy theorist, even though they have a theory that someone is conspiring.

A terrorist cell is just another example of a real type of group which obviously conspires. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing they exist.

Conspiracy theorists is something we call people who believe in a grand conspiracy, one which, had it been real, would have required superhuman levels of coordination and secrecy. That's the brush you for some mysterious reason want to tar critics of Spotify with.

And for the second time this week, someone demands "evidence" for expressions of distrust.

[troupo]

> And for the second time this week, someone demands "evidence" for expressions of distrust.

Funny then that to illustrate your point you use this example: "You would not call a prosecutor who accuses someone of 'criminal conspiracy' a conspiracy theorist". You know what separates criminal prosecutors from conspiracy theorists? They have to provide evidence.

Or this example: "A terrorist cell is just another example of a real type of group which obviously conspires. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing they exist." Yes, because we have evidence that they exist.

See how this works? A theory with no supporting evidence is a crackpot theory.

For example, I can say anything I want about you. When asked about evidence, I can lapse into demagoguery about terrorist cells or something. Perhaps you are a part of a terrorist cell? Otherwise, why bring them into discussion?

[vintermann]

To repeat the salient part, lawyer guy: Conspiracy theorists is something we call people who believe in a grand conspiracy, one which, had it been real, would have required superhuman levels of coordination and secrecy. That's the brush you for some mysterious reason want to tar critics of Spotify with.

And sure, if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt. Feel free to provide evidence to explain. (Remember, by your own standard, your own opinions aren't evidence).

[troupo]

> if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt

I'm pointing out unsubstantiated claims, often to people who don't know jack shit about music industry (e.g. that's why almost every comment in this thread has a variation of "Spotify doesn't pay artists, Spotify pays rights holders")

Note how you still haven't said anything of substance except emotions and ad hominems. But sure, your position is correct and valid, and not mine.