Spotify has announced the disappearance of the global and local Viral 50 charts, entirely generated by algorithms. In their place comes Viral Hits, a playlist selected by editors based on the songs’ cultural relevance and actual popularity, not just automatic data tracking.

It’s a counter-current choice. In a period in which we tend to take for granted a future governed by artificial intelligence, Spotify decides to reintroduce the human factor. For his playlist he abandons the illusion of algorithmic objectivity and entrusts the choice to real people: imperfect, subjective, but endowed with context, sensitivity and interpretative ability. Because a piece of data can measure a trend, but not understand its meaning.

The great bot deception and “photocopy” music

Spotify’s decision certainly doesn’t represent a rejection of technology. Rather, it suggests that even in the algorithmic economy there are areas in which the human factor retains an advantage, because it is capable of intuiting, judging and understanding the context, a capacity that no statistical model is yet able to replicate.

In today’s music market, visibility depends on who controls the algorithms. Large record groups and digital platforms are able to concentrate space and listeners on a few artists, leaving independents and emerging artists out. Added to this are bot campaigns that manipulate the metrics used by recommendation systems. The risk is a standardized market, in which planned virality prevails over diversity.

If the music they make us listen to is decided by algorithms and the “engagement” criteria of a few economic groups, society becomes more standardized and less pluralist. Culture ends up being in the hands of oligarchies who control supply and demand to the point of making them indistinguishable.

The choice to focus on playlists curated by editors, such as Viral Hits, is a step towards less dependence on purely algorithmic logic. But this shifts the question: who decides what deserves attention? And with what criteria? It is the same issue raised by Nicola Zingaretti in the European Parliament during the debate on music streaming: transparency of decision-making processes, pluralism of supply and guarantees for independent artists must accompany both algorithms and human editorial choices. Because the problem is not just who selects the contents, but how verifiable the power of those who distribute the attention is.

If the music we listen to contributes to shaping collective imagination, identity, language and sensitivity, then the management of cultural attention becomes a form of power. The disappearance of Viral 50 on Spotify is, apparently, a technical detail. But it can also be read as a broader signal: technology does not necessarily impose the automation of choices. The platforms decide to what extent to delegate the task of filtering reality to algorithms and artificial intelligence.

The issue, in fact, transcends the world of music streaming and affects the entire digital system. On many social platforms, the selection of content is now almost entirely entrusted to algorithmic systems that determine what deserves visibility and what is relegated to the margins. The user retains the illusion of choice, but increasingly moves within a perimeter defined by criteria that he neither knows nor controls. The case of

Artificial intelligence is not an inevitable fate

None of this is inevitable. The existence of artificial intelligence does not oblige platform managers to entrust the editorial function entirely to it. It’s a choice. And this is precisely why Spotify’s decision takes on a meaning that goes beyond music: it demonstrates that an alternative is possible. Platforms can use algorithms and AI as supporting tools, without giving up human responsibility. They can use technology to improve the quality of the offering, rather than reducing everything to what maximizes online time. They can give users back some control.

The real issue, therefore, is not being for or against artificial intelligence. It’s deciding what role to assign to it. Because a platform that entrusts every choice to machines is not the natural destiny of innovation: it is just one of the possible paths. And maybe not the best.