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

651–660 of 963 posts

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

#651

Post by elcrawfodor »

dTal wrote: post #613
rchaud wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BC lets users stream every track at least a couple of times before asking you to pay. This 'free plays limit' resets after a few days, so theoretically, you wouldn't have to pay to hear it ever. I like the reminder because I'm more willing to support independent artists, and if I get the prompt for a song I like, why not pay $5-8 or whatever to have it in my collection?

There's a limit? I stream a good bit off Bandcamp and I've never once hit it.

I believe it's only on mobile

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

#652

Post by zeeZ »

josteink wrote: post #269
dessant wrote: post #13

They allow advertisers to run JS on your device, and ads are a trendy way to deliver malware. People are using ad blockers not just to hide annoyances and to improve performance, but to protect themselves from bad actors. https://spotifyforbrands.com/en-US/ad-experiences/ > JavaScript or iFrame Tags: All third-party tags and tracking URLs need to be in https format. I was on the fence about this because there is a le…

> People are using ad blockers not just to hide annoyances and to improve performance, but to protect themselves from bad actors. We are talking about people who use ad-blockers to get a “premium” experience while using free, unpaid accounts. Basically leeches undermining everyone else. I see no issue with Spotify terminating these accounts. Even as someone using an ad-blocker. Because I pay for the freaking service…

I skimmed the legalese in the article and did not see them differentiating between account types. Seems like a general statement that may also apply to premium accounts.

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

#653

Post by Wowfunhappy »

stale2002 wrote: post #641
akerl_ wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the approach is “I won’t use services that want to use 3rd-party-RCE-style ads”, it makes sense to me. But the folks who are blocking ads are taking Spotify’s offer (pay us, let us run our ads, or don’t use our service, pick 1) and trying to shoehorn a 4th option that Spotify doesn’t offer: get the content w/o Spotify getting paid. To tell Spotify “I’d use your service if you added an option where the ads didn…

It is within someone's full legal right to use an ad blocker.

Yep! Just like it's within Spotify's full legal right to ban you for using an ad-blocker.

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

#654

Post by freewilly1040 »

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…

re #2: then why not buy 10-12 CDs per year and not use Spotify?

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

#655

Post by kingosticks »

thisisweirdok wrote: post #268
devy wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on a paid account and I use ad blockers religiously. Will Spotify still terminate my account?!

No because you're paying them more than ads generate

Not by as much a I'd have thought:

> Premium Gross Margin was 27.3% in Q4, up from 26.1% in Q3, and up 200 bps Y/Y. Ad-Supported Gross Margin was 22.1% in Q4, up from 18.6% in Q3, and up 350 bps Y/Y.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190206005298/en/?ut...

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

#657

Post by baddox »

DevKoala wrote: post #439
kgwxd wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used this phrase in my entire life but it seems absolutely perfect for the described scenario. Sorry not sorry. I personally chose not to use Spotify at all, but I'm not going to fault anyone for using it with a thrid-party blocker. Even if Spotify didn't also do advertising the right way (e.g. branded playlists (I believe paying users get those too)), no one is obligated to subject themselves to personal…

At the same same time you are stealing a service if you don’t accept either of their revenue proposals when taking advantage of it. If you don’t want ads, then you need to pay in some form. Spotify is not a charity.

It's not stealing or violating any law (as far as I know, and if there is a law against it, I vehemently oppose the law). It's no different than muting radio commercials or recording live TV and fast-forwarding through the commercials. I'm not responsible for Spotify's business model or tech stack.

If Spotify wants to deliver free music bundled with advertisements, it's on them to implement that bundling correctly. If their implementation is two endpoints, one that returns music and another that returns ads, and they just politely suggest that everyone who uses the first endpoint also uses the second, I am in no way obligated to follow their suggestion.

Spotify is free to implement a less laughable implementation of ad bundling, and they're free to block my free account if they don't like my behavior, but I will always oppose any claim that I am obligated to make a request to endpoint B (and execute the code it returns!!!) if I make a request to endpoint A.

For clarity, the "I" in the above paragraphs is hypothetical. I don't use Spotify, but I do pay for Apple Music (not because I feel like I owe them, but because I like the service and think it is worth the price).

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

#658

Post by Pharmakon »

granshaw wrote: post #554
dvtrn wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then pay for the plan! That's the point! Pardon my language, but it's a fucked up point to say pay a service money if you don't want their software to conduct clandestine operations on a device that probably contains all sorts of sensitive and private data that NOBODY has claim to but you, and the people you've expressly desired to share it with. That's the point it would seem to me reading these comments; I realize…

It's more like the kid giving you 2 options: - Unspiked lemonade for $.25 - Spiked lemonade for free Companies are free to sell what they want, for the amount they want. At least there's more than one option here.

It's more like the kid giving you 2 options: - Unspiked lemonade for $.25 - Spiked lemonade for free Companies are free to sell what they want, for the amount they want. At least there's more than one option here.

Thst kid would be arrested, because it’s plain to see from a legal and moral perspective that it’s wrong. Besides, it’s not like that at all.

What it is like is a radio station threatening to cut off service to people who switch channels or turn down volume during ads. This is a problem with the business model, and using TOS tricks to try and twist people’s arm. If they want to be sub only then by all means, but if they want to use an ad model as well then they incur some risks with that. I’m also not clear that it stops with the “free” service only.

Personally I don’t use Spotify, because I like to own my music, and I trust in their business model’s longevity about as much as I believe in fairies. When companies have to threaten their customers to make a business model work, the model is already fucked beyond repair. Advertising on the internet isn’t compatible with the existence and proliferation of ad blockers, and I bristle when a company makes a move to try and undermine autonomy to shore that model up. Moreover if Spotify does it as people accept it, other companies will try to follow suit.

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

#659

Post by RileyJames »

I pay for Spotify, and I’m about ready to drop it.

Offline play is the primary feature I pay for, and it’s SUCKS!!!

They simply DONT allow you to search an index of the songs that are saved to the device.

The major bug is, a song is generally only found via the index you saved it in.

Ie: if you save a song in a playlist, you can’t find it by searching for the artist.

If you save 3 albums by an artist, but not the artist, you try and view the artist, nothing appears.

On top of that, Spotify is the slowest flakiest app regarding internet connection. It regularly says “offline” or “can’t connect” when every other app works just fine.

On top of that, twice while upgrading the app it has deleted my ENTIRE saved library.

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

#660

Post by vvillena »

bad_user wrote: post #415
vvillena wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the capability to deliver JS is still there, even if you're a premium user. This is worrying.

Yes, that happens basically with any app you run on your computer, duh.

Capability + intent is what counts in this case. They intend to deploy countermeasures targeting a minuscule percentage of people, but every user will probably feel the consequences. This, plus the fact that they are willing to serve JS from third parties, is a dangerous mix. It's not what you would expect from a music player app.
Post reply on HN