Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 963 posts

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#561

Post by tzs »

cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

> This thread is an object lesson in why basically every large service on the Internet is ad-supported. When people aren't willing to pay for 1-2 coffees for a month of unlimited music streaming are you really surprised that companies have no choice to use an advertising revenue model?

Note also that in the case of Spotify, Apple Music, etc., most people will only need to subscribe to one of those services to cover pretty much all of their music streaming needs.

With, say, newspapers and magazines they can try to make the argument that to meet their needs they would need to subscribe to a bunch of different papers and magazines and that would get prohibitively expensive very fast.

You can even try that argument somewhat with video streaming services. There are enough exclusive deals between movie producers and movie streaming services that picking one service only means you likely miss out on a lot of movies you want.

But with music that argument just does not work.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#562

Post by munk-a »

admax88q wrote: post #494
grogenaut wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hard thing for platforms is that no one trusts the platform to not lie about delivery metrics. Thus the need for advertisers to run code to verify it ran and run alternative networks. No idea why advertisers trust the ad networks over say spotify. This was going the otherway then facebook's massive lies about video ad views tanked it. Other services like twitch have done what you said and users are equally irate…

> The hard thing for platforms is that no one trusts the platform to not lie about delivery metrics. Thus the need for advertisers to run code to verify it ran and run alternative networks. None of that is my problem as a user though. I'm not obligated to expose myself to malware so that Coca-Cola can accurately track how many people saw their ad.

Within current legal standards you are. Ideally the government is supposed to step in and regulate situations like these to remove bad actors and provide consumer protections, since in a monopoly/oligopoly consumers can be forced to go without a service to comply with onerous conditions for that service and the music industry loves their monopolies.

A website is currently absolutely within their rights to decline you service if you refuse to be tracked by Coca-Cola's spyware ridden malware. This is a consequence of living in a society dominated by false cries to adhere to incorrectly stated libertarian ideals - regulation isn't all bad, though anti-competitive regulation tends to be bad (there is a grey area with incidentally introducing barriers to market entries to fulfill a social need... like everything - it's complicated).

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#563

Post by Aeolun »

cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

15 year old me had basically nothing. Paying $10 per month for pretty much anything was unthinkable.

I still wanted to listen to music though, so I found ways.

I really don’t think that was so terrible, and neither do I think the few million people that block ads are.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#564

Post by majewsky »

mwest wrote: post #379
rchaud wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The selling point of BC for me is the sense of community. You can see reviews of releases from other fans, and you cannot post a review unless you've paid up, which eliminates 99% of trolls/shit-stirrers. It definitely helps that BC is focused on independent artists and doesn't seem interested in pushing grand visions of a global musical monoculture in the way Spotify does (those pretentious Year in Music retrospecti…

Must agree with you here (even though I do like me some Lana del Rey). Majority of Bandcamp music in my collection is retro/synth/new wave, and some "drone" which is nice to have on as white noise while working.

Any suggestions? I'm always looking for new background music for work, and I agree that BandCamp is a very nice shopping experience.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#565

Post by wolco »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #225
wolco wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone offering the complete collection of any artist including bootlags, unreleased tracks, artwork and in some cases images of used tickets of the shows?

If bootlegs and unreleased tracks were officially released, they would become official and released tracks. If there's a specific unreleased track you want, fine, pirate that. I don't think there's anything wrong with pirating content that's not available for sale (as long as you buy it if/when it does become available for sale). However, the existence of some unreleased tracks do not give you license to pirate track…

It's important to keep the piracy channel alive. Right now you may feel you have choices and options but there are a handful of players who can sell you everything. 2020 may not be as great.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#566

Post by wasdfff »

bad_user wrote: post #55
furicane wrote: post #36

It's fascinating how we, humans, are lazy. We're lazy to the point where we'd gladly allow services like Spotify to control our computers just so they can make sure their ad was delivered. We'll even justify it by "well, I really listen to a lot of music". All I want is to push a button and get some bearable-noise during my 8 hours at work. I don't know about the rest, but I really hate when someone makes a fool out…

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.

Clicking on magnet links is just as difficult as clicking on a song in spotify, maybe the websites arent as nicely dressed though.

In the U.S., its $10 a month for your entire life. If you live another 100 years, thats $12k that could have bought top top top of the line speakers or enough cds to fill multiple bookcases. We have so many services like this now that are packaged monthly to hide the real cost of long term use. Its like rent to own all over again, except when you stop renting you do not own.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#567

Post by munk-a »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #479
pytyper2 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would not get as much telemetry, they also want all the data, it's not just the showing of an ad, it'c collecting everything the internet knows about the user and their pc. The problem is the tracking, collecting and resale of personal data. NOT simply viewing an ad! Ya dig?

> They would not get as much telemetry, they also want all the data, it's not just the showing of an ad, it'c collecting everything the internet knows about the user and their pc. The problem is the tracking, collecting and resale of personal data. NOT simply viewing an ad! Ya dig? As a user, I do not care one iota about advertisers who "want all the data." They can all die in an adblock-fueled fire and I won't shed…

Unfortunately a compromise like that could only be reached through enforcement by a third party (probably the government) and in the current political climate that's not going to happen.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#568

Post by majewsky »

kaelin wrote: post #298
number_six wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you forgot how businesses work these days: Fuck you, Pay me

That's how all businesses have worked since the beginning of time.

No, that was just "pay me for this service/good". Most businesses who ventured into "fuck you" territory would soon be out of business because disgruntled customers opens up opportunities for competition to rise.

Sadly, you don't have that anymore with today's economy-of-scale effects.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#569

Post by x15 »

cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

1. Use an alternative like Deezer.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#570

Post by acdha »

discreditable wrote: post #398
EpicEng wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, but you also do not have an inherent right to use their service. What about video game cheats? Should e.g. Blizzard have no recourse should you run software which allows you to cheat in their games? You may say "well fix your bugs!", but it seems simpler and better for the community to just ban the tiny percentage of people who are hell bent on cheating.

I don't think cheating in multiplayer games is comparable. Doing so harms the experience of other players.

Spotify having to raise prices to pay for freeloaders would harm other people, too. This isn’t like copying software where the maker has no direct loss – everyone using Spotify costs them money in bandwidth, servers, and especially playback royalties. That might not be huge but it’s definitely more than zero.
Post reply on HN