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

621–630 of 963 posts

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

#621

Post by munk-a »

grawprog wrote: post #618
munk-a wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal enforceability of the TOS isn't really important here, when you use a service there are conditions with that service. Go ahead and try walking into starbucks, paying for half of a tall americano and walking out the door with half of a tall americano. Service providers have the inherent right to place conditions and limits on the services they provide.

>Go ahead and try walking into starbucks, paying for half of a tall americano and walking out the door with half of a tall americano. I have watched people do exactly this as well as many variations on this theme...at Starbucks.

Did they succeed? I've seen a man with mental health issues walk in an order a coffee normally, paying money for the coffee, then start ranting while waiting for it to be made and end up being led off by the police because he was getting uncomfortably aggressive. There are conditions for service outside of the absolutely obvious ones.

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

#622

Post by manigandham »

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.

You're not obligated. You don't have to use the service, or you can pay for the ad-free version.

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

#623

Post by kingosticks »

wasdfff wrote: post #559
heynk wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've paid for Spotify for a while, so its been some time since I've heard an ad. But from what I remember, if you put the volume below ~30%, the ad pauses.

There are headphones where %30 volume would do some damage.

And if there's some kind of bug where the volume shoots up to max, you just go deaf?

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

#624

Post by amatecha »

reaperducer wrote: post #347
ar0 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will all depend on how this plays out in practice. For now, this is only some fineprint in a ton of other legalese that might or might not be used in the future. I mean, if they show you a notification that you should really sign-up for a paid subscription or disable your adblocker, this does not really seem a big deal for me and all right for Spotify. However, if they terminate your account because you ha…

These two items do not go together: happened to use Spotify for a while on a system with adblocking enabled drive a lot of potential customers If they're not paying and blocking ads, they're not customers. And if they weren't willing to pay for Spotify, why would they suddenly be willing to pay for Apple Music? being on a Pi-Hole network The number of people setting up home filtering devices isn't even a rounding err…

The users disappearing might not be noticed, but the PR crapstorm that would arise would definitely be noticed, especially over a long enough timeline.

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

#625

Post by dTal »

MarsAscendant wrote: post #279
mwest wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandcamp is definitely my favourite platform for buying music. No DRM, flac format available if that's your thing. Artists can put up both digital and physical merch. Wish they had a more fully-featured experience for streaming music on PC. Downloading to play in foobar is a bit of a faff sometimes!

In case you don't do this already: You can use Bandcamp Downloader [ https://github.com/Otiel/BandcampDownloader ] to download the artist's music – including any or all albums and any of the songs – just by entering the addresses of the pages. Might make getting the audio easier, considering you've already paid.

That app doesn't even do anything special. The link to the mp3 is right in the page source code, which Bandcamp intentionally doesn't obfuscate. They justify this by asserting that if somebody really wants to pirate, they'll do so with or without Bandcamp; ergo, it's better to keep them on-platform.

I also like that this fits in with their general marketing of lossless files - sure, you can download the 128kbps mp3s. Go ahead. They're inferior - just previews.

https://get.bandcamp.help/hc/en-us/articles/360007902173-I-h...

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

#626

Post by vaishaksuresh »

endorphone wrote: post #544
zzzcpan wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, paying for service doesn't guarantee ad-free and tracking-free experience at all, especially for VC backed companies. They probably already inject tons of tracking for paying users. And those users are still just users, not customers. The only real customers of spotify are advertisers and sooner or later paying users are going to be sold to advertisers, there is just more money there and they can't ignore that.

This is an absurd claim. I use spotify and suffer zero ads. There is no universe where I am anything but a paying user. People go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize being outrageously cheap.

Ads and Tracking are two different things. Just because you don't see ads related to the tracked data in spotify does not mean that information is not used by the third party elsewhere.

If pay spotify and you listen to metallica, you might not get ads on spotify, but you might get a link to Metallica merchandise on another website.

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

#627

Post by MiddleEndian »

AJ007 wrote: post #423
dithering wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago, a Windows virus slipped on to three family machines I'm the go-to-guy for, due to Spotify using IE to display ads, and not vetting its ads properly. My answer was two-fold - never use Spotify, and always use an ad-blocker.

Ad blockers are mandatory on my parents computers. They can’t distinguish between what is or isn’t an ad (not speaking specifically of Spotify display ads.) I feel like I hold an opinion no one else reading hacker news has, I believe website owners should be able to deliver ads and website visitors should be able to block them.

I'm with you. Spotify can serve ads if they want. Users can block the ads if they want. Spotify can block any users (unless they are paying, then it becomes another issue) if they want.

That being said I also think Spotify (and other sites) should be held liable if they serve malware through their ads.

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

#628

Post by IanCal »

jbeales wrote: post #331
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…

Here's the thing(s): 1. It's not just 1 type of ad. In Little Snitch, I have permitted Spotify to connect to 281 different domain names, most of which are ad-related. That's a lot of companies being allowed to run JS in whatever webview Spotify uses to display ads. I don't listen much on my computer anymore. 2. They keep advertising deals to me - $0.99 for a month, or $9 for 3 months, that I can't subscribe to becaus…

And it's completely fine to not want to trade getting the ads for getting music. I think their point is that it's available for free in return for ads, or for a fairly reasonable cost. To decide neither is for you is just fine, but it's less reasonable to choose no money+no ads.

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

#630

Post by reaperducer »

interestica wrote: post #387
reaperducer wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These two items do not go together: happened to use Spotify for a while on a system with adblocking enabled drive a lot of potential customers If they're not paying and blocking ads, they're not customers. And if they weren't willing to pay for Spotify, why would they suddenly be willing to pay for Apple Music? being on a Pi-Hole network The number of people setting up home filtering devices isn't even a rounding err…

Their customer bases aren't distinct streams. They want existing users to upgrade to a premium version. They're not going to be helped by banning those that are already in their system and a click away from an upgrade. Or, like myself, someone who tested out other similar systems and then decided to upgrade again. Does trying to use my account on a system with an adblocker (that I may not know about) warrant a ban?

They want existing users to upgrade to a premium version

IME, cheap people are cheap. Nagging them doesn't change their minds.

Post reply on HN