Deadline27%

Lorde Calls Out Spotify Over AI "About The Song" Feature: "We Don't Want This" 28%

By Armando Tinoco10%

7/17/2026, 5:07:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.4% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 663 faulty-reasoning hits from 278 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.8% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,833 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

Lorde is calling out Spotify over a new feature that uses AI to give context to the song playing on the streaming service. 
The “About the Song” feature, which is currently in beta, was released earlier this year and gathers information from third-party sources to give details on a particular song. 
“Hey Spotify, I’m gonna go out on a limb [and] say we don’t want this,” Lorde said in a post on Instagram Stories where she shared a screenshot of the feature. 
In the screenshot, Lorde’s song “Current Affairs” was playing, and the “About the Song” feature pulled from themusic.com.au to give details. 
“On her Ultrasound World Tour, Lorde turns Current Affairs into a full-on performance piece, stripping down to underwear while a dancer pours water over her stomach so the song plays out like the shower scene she talks about on stage,” read the AI summary on Spotify. 
Lorde added, “Not only is this inaccurate (not the song I did that in) but reducing a song to an AI generated meaning right at the source feels like it limits free interpretation [in my opinion]. 
At least make it possible for artists to opt out please.” 
Spotify has already removed the text from Lorde’s song, with Pitchfork sharing a statement from the streamer where they said, “We built ‘About the Song’ because fans want to dig into the stories behind the music. 
It’s still in beta. 
The info comes from articles across the internet, and when something’s off, we move fast to fix it, like we did here. 
Getting it right matters to us.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Armando Tinoco: 1.4%Deadline: 2.4%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.2%Deadline: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Armando Tinoco: 5.2%Deadline: 3.1%Availability Heuristic24.5%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.3%Deadline: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.2%Deadline: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Armando Tinoco: 0.3%Deadline: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias7.9%This article: 13.3%Armando Tinoco: 5.5%Deadline: 6.5%Framing Effect13.3%This article: 4.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.1%Deadline: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 16.9%Armando Tinoco: 1.1%Deadline: 0.7%Status Quo Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Armando Tinoco: 1.7%Deadline: 2.5%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 12.6%Armando Tinoco: 0.6%Deadline: 0.8%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 37.4%Armando Tinoco: 10.9%Deadline: 6.7%Negativity Bias37.4%This article: 12.9%Armando Tinoco: 2.2%Deadline: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.4%Deadline: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Armando Tinoco: 3.9%Deadline: 6.1%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 1.4%Deadline: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.5%Deadline: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.5%Deadline: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 3.1%Deadline: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Armando Tinoco: 5.5%Deadline: 3.5%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.8%Deadline: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.3%Deadline: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.2%Armando Tinoco: 4.2%Deadline: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion2.2%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.3%Deadline: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 1.2%Deadline: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.4%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.5%Burden of Proof1.4%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.2%Deadline: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.5%Armando Tinoco: 2.1%Deadline: 1.4%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.8%Deadline: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.1%Armando Tinoco: 2.5%Deadline: 2.9%Unattributed Quote24.1%This article: 5.0%Armando Tinoco: 3.6%Deadline: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 26.3%Armando Tinoco: 5.9%Deadline: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice26.3%This article: 4.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.8%Deadline: 1.0%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.0%Deadline: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Armando Tinoco: 0.5%Deadline: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

278 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers69%attributed speech86writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLorde • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSpotify • 46 words • 0.0% coverageLorde • 36 words • 100.0% coverageLorde • 11 words • 100.0% coveragePitchfork • 36 words • 0.0% coverageSpotify • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSpotify • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSpotify • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lorde

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words41% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Unattributed Quote+85.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lorde: 85.9%85.9%Biased Writer Voice+3.1 ptsWriter: 43.0%Lorde: 46.2%46.2%Quote-first Misdirection-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Lorde: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+14.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lorde: 14.1%14.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.