This week we get into the meat of Spotify streaming manipulation. We’ve already discussed the history, but how did Spotify become so influential? And why? The advent of music streaming opened new avenues for questionable promotion tactics to thrive. While piracy dealt a blow to record sales in the 1990s and 2000s, streaming's growth led to playlists becoming hugely influential. Getting on a top Spotify playlist can bring an artist millions of streams overnight. But with intense competition, some turn to shady methods for infiltration. Fake bot accounts, incentivised listens, and even playlists curators demanding payment to be on large playlists are used to artificially inflate plays. The goal is gaming Spotify's algorithms and human curators to appear more popular than the music merits. Companies openly sell packages guaranteeing huge stream counts through deception. But risks abound, from wasted money to torpedoed careers. Streams-for-hire erode consumer trust and unfairly disadvantage honest artists. The pattern echoes radio payola's heyday, which we discussed in part one last week. As technology progresses, some industry players still cut corners. While once payola was stamped out, streaming's unregulated landscape enabled its revival. Manipulation tricks the algorithm, but harms fair chance. If streaming aims for integrity, the platform, artists, and fans all must play a part. The path ahead remains murky, as new innovations open fresh exploitation possibilities. Yet hope persists that streaming may steer towards rewarding talent, not deception. By learning from history's mistakes, perhaps music promotion can shed its shadows. Or perhaps it’ll remain a wild west, with various figures and organisations vying for the attention, and money, of naive young artists.