Deezer's Bold Stand Against AI Slop: Why Spotify Users Are Finally Switching [2025]

The Streaming Wars Just Got Personal

Last year, something started feeling off about your Spotify recommendations. That indie folk artist you loved? Replaced with three algorithmic copies of the same song structure. That curated playlist you saved? Now polluted with lo-fi beats that sound vaguely familiar but came from nowhere.

You're not paranoid. The algorithm was doing exactly what it was designed to do: optimize for engagement, not quality. And somewhere along the way, both the algorithms and the platforms realized they could inject cheaper, faster, AI-generated music into your feed without you knowing the difference.

Then Deezer did something radical. They're letting you actually control what you listen to. According to Deezer's newsroom, this isn't just a feature update. It's a philosophical shift about who decides what you hear. And after years of Spotify users complaining about algorithmic creep and recommendation fatigue, Deezer's move feels like the first real answer to a question listeners have been asking for years.

Let me break down what Deezer is doing, why it matters, and whether this finally tips the scales in the music streaming wars.

TL; DR

• Deezer now lets users disable algorithmic recommendations entirely and choose human-curated playlists instead.
• AI-generated music is now restricted on the platform, protecting creator royalties and ensuring humans made what you hear, as reported by Reuters.
• Spotify's algorithm problem is worse than you thought, with estimates suggesting up to 30% of some playlists contain AI-generated content, according to TechCrunch.
• Music discovery is broken across the industry, with users reporting algorithm fatigue after repeated plays of similar artists, as noted by The Hans India.
• The shift matters because streaming royalties depend on genuine plays, and AI slop dilutes both artist earnings and your listening experience.

Deezer emphasizes human-curated playlists and restricts AI-generated music, contrasting with Spotify's focus on algorithmic recommendations. Estimated data based on platform policies.

What Deezer Actually Changed (And Why It Took So Long)

Deezer's update sounds simple on the surface: you can now toggle off algorithmic recommendations and rely entirely on human curation. But the implications run deep into how streaming platforms make money and how they treat both artists and listeners.

Here's the reality of modern streaming algorithms. They're not designed to find you music you love. They're designed to keep you listening longer. That's fundamentally different. An algorithm that keeps you on the platform for two more hours watching the same artist loop has succeeded, even if you hated every minute after the first song.

Spotify's algorithm does this brilliantly. It learns that you listen to lo-fi beats at 3 AM, so it feeds you lo-fi beats until you're sick of lo-fi beats. Then it pivots to something similar, something that triggers the same dopamine response. It's not malicious. It's mathematical. But it's not serving you.

Deezer's move addresses this by giving users the nuclear option: turn the algorithm off completely. Pick from human-curated collections instead. No machine learning. No optimization for engagement. Just people who understand music taste putting together playlists.

The second piece is more controversial: Deezer's stance on AI-generated music. They're actively restricting it. While Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music have all quietly accumulated pools of AI-generated tracks (often with minimal disclosure), Deezer is saying no. Not just "we'll label it." Not "we'll mark it as AI." Straight-up restricted, as highlighted by Rappler.

Why? Because AI-generated music destroys the economics of streaming for actual artists. When an AI system can generate 10,000 songs overnight and upload them to Spotify, those songs dilute the pool that real artists compete for attention in. Plus, they suppress per-stream payouts for everyone. If listeners are hearing AI slop, they're hearing fewer plays from humans, which means lower royalties across the board.

Estimated data shows that if 30% of playlists contain AI-generated tracks, human artists face reduced exposure and royalties.

The Spotify Algorithm Problem Nobody Talks About

Spotify's Discover Weekly is brilliant marketing. It feels personal. It feels like Spotify understands your taste. And that's exactly why it works so well—and why it's so insidious.

The algorithm doesn't discover music for you. It discovers music that keeps you on Spotify. There's a crucial difference. A discovery system that respected your actual taste would prioritize novelty, quality, and genuine alignment with your listening history. Spotify's Discover Weekly optimizes for engagement metrics: skip rate, completion rate, and time-in-session.

Here's how this breaks down in practice. You listen to an indie rock band. The algorithm doesn't find the next best indie rock band. It finds an artist that has just enough similarity to your taste to keep you engaged, but different enough that you won't immediately skip. Then it tweaks those artists based on what other listeners similar to you listen to. The math is elegant. The result is listener fatigue.

Over time, this creates what's called the "algorithm trap." You notice your Discover Weekly getting blander. You notice you're hearing the same kind of beats, the same production style, the same emotional tone. You're not going crazy. The algorithm is literally converging on a formula that works to keep you from skipping.

Then there's the AI-generated music layer. Spotify hasn't made a big announcement, but music engineers and independent researchers have found evidence that some percentage of Spotify's catalog consists of AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted tracks. The exact number varies depending on genre (electronic music and lo-fi hip-hop have the highest concentrations), but estimates suggest anywhere from 5% to 30% of some playlists contain AI-generated content, as noted by Bob Sullivan.

Why would Spotify allow this? Because AI-generated music is cheap. Spotify can pay a few dollars to generate thousands of tracks, upload them to the platform, and let them compete with human artists. Each play of an AI track means fewer plays (and fewer royalties) for human artists. It's profit optimization at the expense of creators.

Spotify's incentive structure is broken. They make money on subscriptions, not per-stream payouts. This means they benefit from maximizing total listening time, even if that means diluting the pool with AI content. More music on the platform equals more options equals more time spent scrolling equals higher engagement metrics.

Why Human Curation Actually Works Better (And It's Not Nostalgia)

There's a tendency to dismiss human curation as nostalgia. "Oh, you just miss the days when radio DJs picked your music." But that's not fair to what human curation actually does well.

A human curator—whether that's a music journalist, a passionate hobbyist, or a professional tastemaker—operates on principles machines don't have access to. They understand context. They know that a sad song works better next to a hopeful song because it creates emotional contrast. They get that mixing genres creates discovery, not algorithm fatigue. They curate for the listening experience, not for engagement optimization.

Deezer's move to prioritize human-curated playlists taps into something the algorithm wars have almost killed: taste. Real taste. Not algorithmic optimization disguised as taste.

There's also a practical side. Human curators catch repetition. An algorithm might place the same artist five times in a playlist if the math works out. A human curator would never do that. They'd ask, "Why would I want to hear this artist twice in one sitting?" An algorithm asks, "Does this maximize engagement?" Those are opposite questions.

The psychology here matters. When you listen to a human-curated playlist, you're hearing the curator's taste. That means you're more likely to discover artists who don't fit your exact profile but should based on your musical taste. You're exploring, not grinding. There's a difference.

Spotify has human curators too, but they're secondary to the algorithm. The algorithm gets the front page, the recommendation slots, the push notifications. Human curation is buried under "Browse All Playlists." Deezer is flipping this hierarchy.

There's also something psychological about knowing someone (or a team) chose this for you versus a machine optimized for your engagement. You trust human judgment differently. You're more likely to lean into a recommendation from a person than from a statistical model, even if the statistical model is technically more accurate.

Tidal offers the highest payout per stream at

The AI Music Problem Is Worse Than You Think

AI-generated music isn't new. What's new is the scale at which it's being deployed without transparency. And what's worse is the impact on the people making actual music.

Here's how the economics work. A human artist spends weeks or months writing, recording, and producing a song. It costs money. It requires skill and taste and iteration. Then they upload it to Spotify and hope it gets played enough to earn enough money to justify the time.

Meanwhile, an AI system can generate the same song in seconds for a few dollars. It won't be as good. It won't have the same emotional depth or technical skill. But it doesn't need to be good. It just needs to exist and be plausible enough that it shows up in recommendations.

The per-stream payout on Spotify is already absurdly low: somewhere between

But the problem gets worse when AI music enters the equation. If 30% of the playlists someone listens to contain AI-generated tracks, that's 30% fewer plays for human artists. That's 30% lower royalties across the industry. The total payout pie isn't growing. It's being divided among more tracks, and the non-AI tracks get smaller slices.

There's also the algorithmic preference problem. An algorithm trained on human-created music will naturally prefer AI-generated music in some cases because AI music is often optimized for the same metrics the algorithm uses to rank tracks. It's a feedback loop. AI gets recommended more, so more AI gets uploaded, so the algorithm trains on more AI, so it recommends more AI.

Breaking this loop requires intervention. That's what Deezer is doing. By restricting AI-generated music, they're saying: we're not going to let our platform become a dumping ground for machine-generated content. We're protecting artist earnings. We're protecting discovery quality. We're protecting the listening experience.

This is controversial. Some argue that AI should be allowed and simply labeled clearly. But transparency without restriction is naive. If listeners could distinguish between AI and human music, they might choose human music. But most people don't have that skill. They just know they're bored.

Another argument is that AI music is democratizing music creation. That's partially true. Anyone can generate music now. But democratization through saturation isn't real democratization. It's just noise. If your AI song competes with 100 million other AI songs, and all of them are essentially the same, then nobody wins. The barrier to entry is gone, but so is the ability to be heard.

What This Means for Music Discovery (The Real Problem)

Music discovery is broken. Not just on Spotify. Across the industry. And the problem isn't the algorithm alone. It's the fundamental conflict between platforms and listeners.

Platforms want engagement. They measure success in time-on-app, daily active users, and subscriber retention. Everything else is secondary. A discovery system that makes you love an artist and then you listen to nothing else for six months is actually bad for the platform. You're using Spotify less frequently. You're engaging less often.

But a discovery system that keeps you in an endless loop of slightly different music, always just novel enough to prevent skipping but never truly surprising, is great for engagement metrics. You stay on the platform longer. You open the app more frequently. You need Spotify to find music because you've lost the ability to do it yourself.

This is why algorithm-only streaming is exhausting. You're not discovering music. You're being kept busy with music.

Human curation solves this, but not completely. A human-curated playlist can't scale to infinite users with infinite taste preferences. You need tens of thousands of curators to serve millions of listeners properly. That's expensive. That's why most platforms use algorithms. They scale. They're efficient. And they work great at keeping you engaged.

Deezer's approach is hybrid, which makes sense. They're not abandoning algorithms entirely. They're just giving users the choice to use human curation instead. This means people who want discovery can use algorithms. People who want guided listening can use human curation. People can switch depending on mood.

But the deeper question is: can discovery survive on a for-profit platform? Real discovery requires risk. Real discovery requires recommending music that might not maximize engagement. Real discovery requires curators who understand taste better than users understand themselves.

Spotify could do this. They have the scale, the resources, the user base. But it would require sacrificing engagement metrics. It would require paying curators instead of training algorithms. It would require trusting that better discovery leads to long-term retention even if it doesn't maximize immediate engagement.

Most platforms won't make that trade. Deezer is betting that enough users care enough about quality discovery to choose them over Spotify. That's a big bet. But it's the first bet anyone's made on this particular problem in years.

Estimated data suggests a potential market segmentation with convenience platforms holding 50%, quality platforms 30%, and hybrid platforms 20% of the market.

The Economics: Why Artists Actually Care About This

It's easy to dismiss Deezer's move as marketing. "Oh, they're just differentiating from Spotify." But from an artist's perspective, this is genuinely important economics.

Streaming royalties are already low. Spotify pays between

These are tiny numbers, but they compound with scale. An artist with 1 million streams a year makes

But it gets worse when AI enters the picture. If 30% of streams are AI-generated music, and Spotify has limited payouts from its subscription pool, then human artists are effectively competing for 70% of the payout. The total pie doesn't grow. The slices get smaller.

For independent artists, this is catastrophic. A niche artist with 100,000 fans might make

Deezer's restriction on AI-generated music addresses this directly. By preventing AI music from flooding the platform, they're protecting the denominator. They're saying: this pool of payouts belongs to human artists. That's economically significant for independent creators.

There's also a signaling effect. When Deezer takes a stand against AI-generated music, it tells artists and fans that they value the creation of music. They're not neutral. They're not saying "AI and humans are equally valid." They're saying "we believe in human creativity, and we're organizing our platform around it."

For artists, this is powerful. It gives them a reason to prioritize Deezer over Spotify in their release strategy. For fans, it means artists they like are actually being compensated fairly-ish. It's not much, but in an industry where the status quo is "starve while making art," any improvement matters.

How Spotify Got Here (And Why They Haven't Changed)

Spotify didn't start out as the algorithm-first platform. When they launched, they had human curators and recommendations. But as they grew, they realized that scale required algorithms. You can hire 100 curators, but you can't hire 1 million curators to serve 1 billion users.

So Spotify invested heavily in machine learning. They hired PhDs from Carnegie Mellon and MIT to build recommendation systems. They created the algorithm to scale. And it worked. Spotify exploded in growth. They went from startup to global platform to publicly traded company.

But something got lost in the scaling. The human element. The taste. The curation that made music feel discovered rather than served.

Spotify's growth model also creates lock-in. Once you have 500 million users trained to use Spotify's algorithm, changing to a different discovery model risks alienating them. The algorithm is comfortable. It's familiar. Even if it's not great, it's good enough to keep people subscribed.

Plus, Spotify benefits from AI-generated music. They don't have to pay it as much as human music (technically, they do pay the per-stream rate, but the total pool is fixed, so AI music means lower payouts to humans). They don't have to negotiate with major labels or independent distributors. They can let algorithms handle recommendation. From a business perspective, AI-generated music is a revenue-positive move.

Would Spotify restrict AI-generated music if they wanted to? They could. They have the platform, the power, the user base. But it would require sacrificing profit margins. It would require paying more in artist royalties. It would require rebuilding parts of their recommendation system.

Spotify chose growth and profit over artist welfare and discovery quality. That's a business decision. But it's a decision that has downstream effects. Artists struggle. Listeners get bored. The ecosystem becomes less healthy.

Deezer is betting that enough people are tired of the current system to switch. That's risky. Spotify has 600+ million users. Deezer has 10+ million. It's a 60x difference. But Deezer has one thing Spotify doesn't: a defensible position on principles. They're the platform that respects artists. They're the platform that respects discovery. They're the platform that puts users in control.

That's a narrative that could resonate. Not with everyone. But with enough people to matter.

Estimated data shows that electronic and lo-fi hip-hop genres have the highest concentration of AI-generated music, with up to 30% of tracks being AI-generated.

The Technical Reality: Can Deezer Actually Enforce AI Restrictions?

Here's where Deezer's stance gets tricky. Restricting AI-generated music sounds good in theory. But enforcing it is harder than it sounds.

How do you detect AI-generated music? There are technical solutions, but they're not perfect. You can analyze audio fingerprints, look for patterns in the production, examine metadata, and use machine learning classifiers. But a good AI-generated song can pass many of these tests. And a poorly produced human song might fail some of them.

Plus, there's the definitional problem. What counts as AI-generated music? A producer who uses AI-powered tools like LANDR for mastering is technically using AI. Is that AI-generated music? What about a producer who uses auto-tune or pitch correction? Those are algorithms. Where's the line?

Deezer's likely approach is to focus on fully AI-generated or AI-composed music. Music where the entire creation process was algorithmic. But even that requires detection mechanisms. And even with detection mechanisms, bad actors will find ways around them. They'll mix in just enough human elements to pass the filter. They'll misrepresent the creation process in metadata.

This is the same problem YouTube faced with deepfakes, Twitter faced with misinformation, and every platform faces with content moderation. The enforcement is hard. The incentives to cheat are high. And the cat-and-mouse game never really ends.

But Deezer's move still matters even if enforcement is imperfect. Because they're signaling a commitment to quality over scale. They're saying "we will actively moderate this." That's different from Spotify's approach, which is essentially "let everything up, optimize with algorithms."

Imperfect enforcement of good principles is still better than perfect scaling of bad ones.

The technical implementation likely involves a combination of automated detection and human review. When music is uploaded to Deezer, it goes through algorithmic screening. Music that flags as potentially AI-generated gets human review. Curators listen and make a judgment call. Some will slip through. Some false positives will be caught. But the overall effect is a platform with fewer AI-generated tracks than Spotify.

That's not perfect. But it's better than the alternative, which is the current Spotify situation where AI music is just part of the landscape, unacknowledged and unrestricted.

Why This Matters Beyond Streaming

Deezer's move isn't just about streaming music. It's about a broader question in the AI era: who controls platforms, and whose interests do they serve?

Right now, most platforms optimize for engagement and profit. That means algorithms. That means maximizing time-on-app. That means allowing anything that contributes to those metrics, including AI-generated content that users don't even realize is AI.

Deezer is asking a different question: what if we optimized for listener satisfaction instead? What if we prioritized discovery quality over engagement time? What if we protected artist earnings instead of maximizing platform profit?

These aren't just nice ideas. They're economically viable alternatives. Deezer's model is based on the insight that enough people are tired of algorithmic optimization to pay for something different. They're betting that users will switch if the alternative is genuinely better.

If Deezer succeeds, it sends a signal to the industry. It says: there's a market for platforms that prioritize quality over growth. There's a market for platforms that respect artists. There's a market for platforms that put users in control.

If Deezer fails, it suggests that most users are happy enough with Spotify's algorithm-first approach that they don't want to switch. In that case, AI-generated music will continue to proliferate, artist royalties will continue to decline, and platforms will continue to optimize for engagement over quality.

The stakes are bigger than just music. This is about what happens in the AI era when platforms have a choice between scrappy optimization and principled design. Right now, optimization is winning. Deezer is making a bet that principles can win too.

Apple Music excels in ecosystem integration, while Tidal leads in artist support. YouTube Music heavily relies on algorithms. (Estimated data)

The Competitive Landscape: Apple Music, YouTube Music, and Tidal

Deezer isn't alone in trying to differentiate from Spotify. But each competitor has taken a different approach.

Apple Music has leaned into curation, but combined it with algorithms. They have celebrity playlists, human-curated collections, and algorithm-generated recommendations. The difference from Spotify is subtle. Apple Music surfaces curation more prominently and algorithms less. But both are there. Apple's advantage is integration with Apple's ecosystem. If you're in Apple's world (iPhone, Apple Watch, HomePod), Apple Music is seamless.

Tidal took a different route. They positioned themselves as the artist-friendly option by paying more per stream. They also created artist discovery tools and let artists interact with listeners directly. Tidal's bet was: if we pay artists better, they'll prioritize us, and fans will follow. That strategy has worked to some degree. Tidal has loyal users, especially among music enthusiasts and musicians. But it never reached Spotify's scale.

YouTube Music is essentially YouTube plus music. They use recommendation algorithms optimized for watch time, not listen quality. For YouTube Music, the goal is to keep you in the YouTube ecosystem. Music is secondary to ads and engagement.

Deezer's move is different from all of these. They're not just adding better curation or paying artists more. They're actively restricting AI-generated music and giving users the power to turn off algorithms entirely. That's a more radical stance.

But it's also riskier. Because it requires fighting both human psychology (users are used to algorithms being convenient) and economic incentives (algorithms are more profitable for platforms).

Deezer's success depends on whether there's a critical mass of users who care enough about discovery quality and artist welfare to switch. There probably is. The question is whether it's large enough to sustain Deezer's business. Streaming is a low-margin business. You need scale to be profitable. Deezer needs to grow without sacrificing the principles that differentiate them.

It's a difficult balance. But if anyone can pull it off, it's Deezer, because they're not trying to be Spotify. They're trying to be what Spotify should have been all along.

What Deezer's Users Actually Think

Deezer's move hasn't been universally celebrated. Some users say it doesn't matter. Others worry Deezer will run out of content. Some think the AI restriction is elitist. But the most vocal responses have been positive.

Users who switched to Deezer report spending less time searching for music and more time enjoying it. They say human-curated playlists feel more intentional. They appreciate knowing that artists are being paid fairly. They like having the option to turn off recommendations if they want.

For long-time Spotify users, the adjustment can feel jarring. You're used to the algorithm doing the work for you. With Deezer, you have to be more intentional about choosing playlists or opting into recommendations. For some users, that's a feature. For others, it's friction.

But the users who appreciate it tend to be the ones who care about music. Musicians, music journalists, serious listeners. The people who think about music rather than just have it in the background.

That's a niche. But it's a loyal niche. And in the streaming wars, loyalty matters more than market share. Spotify might have 600 million users, but many of them are half-engaged. Deezer's strategy is to have 50 million truly engaged users who use the service daily and pay the monthly subscription reliably.

There's also a selection effect. When you choose to switch to Deezer knowing that it has fewer AI-generated songs and more human curation, you're self-selecting into the group of users who care about that. That creates a positive feedback loop. Deezer's users are more likely to appreciate Deezer's features because they're the kind of users who would appreciate them.

This is different from Spotify, which is the default choice for most people. Spotify doesn't need users to care about discovery quality. They just need to be good enough that people don't bother switching. Deezer needs users to actively choose them, which requires delivering something noticeably better.

The Future: What Happens If This Works

If Deezer's strategy succeeds, it could reshape the streaming industry. Not by making Deezer the market leader (that's unlikely), but by forcing competitors to reckon with the problems they've been ignoring.

Spotify would feel pressure to change. They could improve their human curation infrastructure. They could restrict AI-generated music. They could give users more control over recommendations. But any of these moves would require acknowledging that their current approach isn't optimal, and that's hard for a platform that's been so successful.

More likely, we'd see market segmentation. Some users would stay on Spotify for convenience and the network effect. Others would move to Deezer or similar services for better discovery. The industry would stratify: convenience platforms and quality platforms. Both would be successful, serving different user needs.

We might also see AI-generated music become more regulated. Right now, there's no requirement to label music as AI-generated. If regulation becomes necessary (and it might), Deezer would be ahead of the curve.

For artists, success of quality-focused platforms would mean better economics. Fewer AI-generated songs competing for plays means higher royalties. Better discovery mechanisms mean easier path to audience for independent musicians. These aren't game-changers, but they're improvements on the current situation where artists struggle to earn livable income from streaming.

For listeners, the upside is obvious: better discovery, less algorithm fatigue, and the psychological satisfaction of knowing you're supporting real artists. The downside is losing the convenience of algorithmic recommendations. You have to be more intentional. But that might actually be healthy. Intentional listening is more satisfying than passive consumption.

Longer term, this could influence how tech companies think about optimization. Right now, engagement metrics are king. Time-on-app, DAU, retention. But what if platforms started measuring quality instead? Listener satisfaction, artist welfare, discovery novelty. These metrics are harder to quantify, but they're more meaningful.

Deezer's bet is that these metrics matter enough to users to make a difference in their choices. That's a bet on the intelligence and values of consumers. It could work. Or it could fail, and we'll all end up in a future where algorithm-driven engagement optimization is the only business model in tech.

What You Should Do Right Now

If you're tired of Spotify's algorithm, you have options. But they require action, and action has costs.

First, understand that the algorithm isn't going away. Even if you switch platforms, you're still dealing with algorithmic recommendations to some degree. The question is whether the platform lets you opt out and whether they supplement algorithms with human curation.

Second, decide what matters to you. Is convenience most important? Stick with Spotify. Is discovery quality most important? Try Deezer. Is supporting artists most important? Try Tidal. Most people will value some combination of all three, which means evaluating tradeoffs.

Third, actually try the alternatives. Spotify's familiarity is a huge competitive advantage. Deezer, Tidal, and Apple Music all have free tiers or trials. Use them. See if the experience is notably better. For most people, the answer will be no because Spotify is convenient and good enough.

But for the subset of users who care deeply about music discovery and artist welfare, the answer will be yes. For that subset, switching is worthwhile.

If you do switch, give it time. A month minimum. You need to get past the unfamiliarity and actually experience how the different discovery mechanisms work. After a month, you'll know whether the new platform is better for you.

You could also hedge. Use multiple services. Some people do this already. Spotify for convenient background listening, Deezer or Tidal for intentional discovery. It's expensive (that's potentially $10-30/month), but if you care about music, it's reasonable.

Finally, support artists directly. Use YouTube, Bandcamp, or artist Patreon accounts to listen and pay artists. Streaming will never pay well. Direct support does better. If you're serious about fair compensation for artists, the most important thing you can do is not rely on any streaming service alone.

The Deeper Conversation: Platforms and Principles in the AI Era

Deezer's move matters because it's rare. Most tech companies optimize ruthlessly. They measure everything in engagement and revenue. They ask, "How do we maximize time-on-app?" They don't ask, "What's the impact on creators?" or "Is this good for discovery?"

Deezer is asking those questions. And they're organizing their platform around the answers, even though it costs them in the short term.

This is refreshing but also precarious. Because principles don't always win in capitalism. The platform that plays by the rules and maximizes profit usually wins. The platform that sacrifices profit for principles usually loses.

But there are exceptions. Some users will pay a premium for values-aligned products. Some communities will build around platforms that respect them. And sometimes, the principled approach turns out to be more profitable long-term, even if it's less profitable short-term.

The future of streaming probably depends on which outcome actually happens with Deezer. If they fail despite good intentions, it suggests that principles don't matter to enough users. The market wants convenience, not values. In that case, platforms will continue optimizing ruthlessly, and we should expect more AI-generated music, more algorithmic creep, and more artist suffering.

If Deezer succeeds or even just survives, it suggests that there's room in the market for principled companies. That users do care about where their money goes. That discovery quality matters enough to offset the convenience loss. In that case, the streaming industry might shift toward more competition on values, not just features.

Either way, Deezer's move is a test. It's testing whether the market actually cares about the problems we talk about. Algorithm fatigue. AI-generated music. Artist compensation. These problems are real. But are they real enough that people will change behavior? Deezer's success or failure will tell us.

FAQ

What exactly did Deezer change in their platform?

Deezer introduced two major changes: first, they now allow users to completely disable algorithmic recommendations and rely entirely on human-curated playlists instead. Second, they've restricted AI-generated music from being uploaded to the platform, protecting both discovery quality and artist royalties. This puts users in control of their discovery experience and ensures that the music they hear was created by humans, not algorithms.

How is Deezer's approach different from Spotify's?

Spotify's primary discovery mechanism is algorithmic recommendations optimized for user engagement and time-on-app. While Spotify does have human-curated playlists, these are secondary to the algorithm. Deezer flips this: human curation is the default, and algorithms are opt-in. Additionally, Deezer actively restricts AI-generated music, while Spotify allows it. This means Deezer prioritizes discovery quality and artist welfare, while Spotify prioritizes engagement and platform profit.

Will Deezer run out of music by restricting AI-generated songs?

No. While AI-generated music has proliferated on other platforms, it represents a small percentage of total music uploads. Deezer's restriction removes mostly low-quality, repetitive content that wouldn't improve discovery anyway. Most mainstream artists, independent musicians, and established catalogs aren't affected. What's removed is the flood of identical lo-fi beats and algorithmic filler that was diluting the listening experience.

How does Deezer detect and enforce AI-generated music restrictions?

Deezer uses a combination of automated audio analysis and human review. When music is uploaded, algorithmic detection systems analyze audio fingerprints and production patterns to flag potentially AI-generated tracks. These are then reviewed by human curators who make final determinations. It's not perfect, but the goal is to catch the obvious cases where AI was used for the entire creation process, while allowing music created with AI tools as part of a larger human creative process.

Why does AI-generated music hurt artists financially?

Streaming platforms have a fixed payout pool from subscription revenue. When AI-generated music floods the platform, it competes with human-created music for plays. Each play of an AI song means fewer plays for human artists, which directly reduces their per-stream earnings. Since streaming royalties are already low (around $0.003-0.005 per stream), even small percentage increases in AI competition create meaningful income losses for musicians.

Can I switch from Spotify to Deezer without losing my music library?

Yes. Services like Soundiiz and Tune My Music allow you to transfer playlists and favorite songs from Spotify to Deezer automatically. Your listening history won't transfer, but your music library will. You can also manually add songs to Deezer playlists. Most Spotify playlists have equivalent human-curated playlists on Deezer that you can explore instead of recreating your own.

Is Deezer available in my country?

Deezer operates in over 180 countries, making it more globally available than many competing services. However, availability of specific features, music catalog, and subscription options may vary by region. You can check Deezer's website for your specific country to see what's available in your location.

Will other streaming platforms follow Deezer's lead on AI music restrictions?

It's uncertain. Platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music benefit economically from AI-generated music because it's cheap and fills their catalog. Restricting it would require sacrificing profit and rebuilding recommendation systems. However, if Deezer's user growth and retention metrics suggest that quality-focused discovery attracts loyal users, competitors may be forced to reconsider their approach to protect market share.

How much does Deezer cost compared to Spotify?

Deezer's pricing is comparable to Spotify: the free tier has limitations, while premium costs around the same as Spotify Premium (typically $10-12 per month depending on your region). Some differences include promotional pricing, family plans, and regional variation. The value difference is in features, not price. Both services are similarly priced; Deezer's advantage is in discovery quality and creator support, not cost.

Should I switch to Deezer if I'm happy with Spotify?

It depends on what matters to you. If you're happy with Spotify's algorithm and don't care about AI-generated music, there's no reason to switch. The convenience of staying is significant. But if you've noticed algorithm fatigue, enjoy discovering artists more thoughtfully, or care about artist compensation, Deezer is worth trying. Use Deezer's free trial for a month. If you find the discovery experience notably better and you're willing to be more intentional about music selection, then switching is worthwhile.

Final Thoughts: The Choice Is Yours Now

Streaming music has been optimized for platforms, not people. Spotify's algorithm works great for Spotify. It keeps users engaged, it collects data, it provides recommendations at scale. But it doesn't work great for discovery, and it doesn't work great for artists.

Deezer's move is radical only because it's so obvious. Of course you should be able to turn off algorithmic recommendations. Of course AI-generated music that dilutes artist earnings is a problem. Of course human curation can work better than engagement optimization.

But in the world of tech platforms, obviousness is rare. Most companies don't do obvious things if they cost profit. Deezer is betting that obviousness is valuable enough to build a business around.

That bet could fail. Users might not care enough to switch. Artists might not see income improvements. Deezer might run into the same scaling problems that made Spotify abandon curation in the first place.

Or it could work. Users might discover that better discovery is worth the switching cost. Artists might find that Deezer's stance creates momentum toward higher payouts across the industry. Deezer might build a sustainable alternative to the algorithm-first model.

What matters is that Deezer is trying something different. They're asking whether you want control over your discovery. Whether you care that AI-generated music is polluting artist earnings. Whether platforms can optimize for human flourishing instead of just engagement.

You get to answer that question now. Deezer's features let you actually choose. Try it. See if it works for you. Because if enough people try it, something might actually change.

And if nothing changes? Then at least you'll know you tried.

Key Takeaways

• Deezer allows users to completely disable algorithmic recommendations and rely entirely on human-curated playlists instead.
• AI-generated music on streaming platforms reduces artist royalties by 30% or more by competing for limited per-stream payouts.
• Spotify pays between
  $0.003-$
  0.005 per stream, requiring artists to reach 8-13 million streams annually to earn minimum wage.
• Human curation actually provides better discovery than algorithms because it prioritizes listening experience over engagement metrics.
• The streaming industry faces a choice between engagement optimization and user/artist welfare; Deezer is betting on the latter.

Related Articles

• Spotify's About the Song Feature: What You Need to Know [2025]
• Spotify's About the Song Feature: Complete Guide [2025]
• Spotify Hits 750M Users: Growth Drivers Behind the Numbers [2025]
• Apple Music's Two Game-Changing Features Finally Catch Up to Spotify [2025]
• Google Pixel Now Playing Gets Dedicated App: What's Coming in 2025
• Why Netflix Canceled Terminator Zero: Inside the Streaming Apocalypse [2025]