Deezer reported that roughly 10 percent of new uploads it received last year were fully AI-generated. That's not a niche curiosity; it's a flood entering a payout pool and recommendation feed built for human-scale output. The other side will call this gatekeeping, and sure, AI tools can be genuinely creative. But streaming isn't a neutral library, it's a zero-sum attention economy: every synthetic track competes for playlist slots and royalties. If platforms don't draw a line, the people actually making music get buried by volume. That's why AI songs don't belong there by default.

Framing matters here: the question isn't whether AI music can be pleasant, it's whether platforms are neutral pipes or curated economies. My opponent says if it's streamed, it belongs and streaming isn't about quality. Fair enough, I'm not asking platforms to be taste police. But playback alone can't be the test, because streaming is a royalty pool and recommendation engine, not a shelf. Synthetic tracks can rack up plays through bots or sheer volume while adding nothing to the pool. If streamed equals belongs, what's the stopping point?

Imagine someone opens a focus playlist and gets 40 generic AI tracks tagged "ambient study," while a human composer's real piece never surfaces because the feed is full. My opponent says consumers decide, and that's fair in theory. But recommendation systems decide what consumers ever see. If streamed equals belongs, the market test is rigged: volume and metadata optimization win before taste gets a vote. I'm not asking platforms to judge quality. I'm asking them to label and separate synthetic catalogs so listeners can actually make the choice the other side keeps praising.