The article provides a factual account of SoundCloud's update to its Terms of Use and the subsequent backlash. It accurately reports the change in terms, the discovery by Ed Newton-Rex, and the company's response. However, it lacks detailed verification of certain claims, such as whether users were notified about the changes and how SoundCloud's AI tools are developed. The story mentions that SoundCloud introduced AI tools for music creation, but does not explore if these tools utilize user content, which is a critical point for verification. The statement from SoundCloud claiming they do not use artist content for AI training is presented, but further investigation into this claim would enhance accuracy.

The article primarily presents SoundCloud's perspective and its responses to the backlash, providing quotes from the company. It also includes the viewpoint of the tech ethicist who discovered the change, which adds some balance. However, the story could be more balanced by including more perspectives from affected artists or industry experts to provide a broader view of the implications of such terms changes. The focus on SoundCloud's statements may inadvertently downplay the concerns of artists and users, leading to a slight imbalance in representation.

The article is generally clear and easy to follow, with a logical structure that outlines the sequence of events: the terms change, the discovery, the backlash, and SoundCloud's response. The language is straightforward and accessible, making the story comprehensible to a general audience. However, the article could enhance clarity by providing more detailed explanations of technical terms, such as the specific nature of AI tools mentioned.

The article cites credible sources, such as a tech ethicist and statements from SoundCloud, which adds to its reliability. The mention of TechCrunch as a source also lends credibility, given its reputation in tech journalism. However, the article could benefit from additional sources, such as legal experts or artists affected by the terms change, to provide a more comprehensive view. The reliance on SoundCloud's own statements introduces potential bias, as the company has a vested interest in mitigating backlash.

The article provides some context about the changes to SoundCloud's Terms of Use and the resulting backlash. It includes statements from SoundCloud, offering insight into the company's perspective. However, the article does not delve into the methodology of how the terms were changed or the process of user notification, which affects transparency. Greater disclosure of how the information was obtained and the potential impact on users' rights would improve transparency.