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

471–480 of 963 posts

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

#471

Post by hombre_fatal »

grogenaut wrote: post #464
kgwxd wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…

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…

Of course, radio was paid for by ads as well.

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

#472

Post by dcow »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #300
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…

> There are at least three options: > 1. Pay for the service > 2. Suffer through the ads > 3. Don't use the service Those are the customer's options. What about Spotify's? 1. Offer the service as paid-only, no free with ads option. 2. Offer a paid version and a free version, but some people use ad blockers. 3. Offer a paid version and a free version, block ad blockers and expose your customers to malware. The last is…

Like others have mentioned, you can do #2/3 without the “expose to malware” caveat if you implement responsible ads.

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

#473

Post by kgwxd »

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 no stealing, it's not even lying. Show me where in the agreement it says exactly "you must to listen to ads from a third-party if you listen to music". There are things like "we retain the right to...", or "by using this service, you agree to allow us to...". There are no commandments, only stuff that covers their ass so you can't sue them for closing your account, exposing your personal information or letting other people hack your devices.

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

#474

Post by grogenaut »

VRay wrote: post #445
bad_user wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming you're using an ads-blocker. Just out of curiosity, if Spotify would serve ads via images only, without JavaScript, would you whitelist it in your ads-blocker? If no, then the loading of JavaScript isn't really the issue, isn't it?

Man, I would delete my ad blockers right now and never use them again if everyone just served inert images, text, or even video without tracking affordances. I mainly block ads so I can cling to my last tiny shred of privacy and security

Several companies have done this and the users still scream about it, sometimes more because now they can't block the ads.

The other hard thing for a company is internally, you see normal ad revenue going down and you have some users you can deliver to via some methods. You have to crank that method up to account for it.

Ads is also interesting with the "how much money is enough money" argument. When do you stop monetizing.

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

#475

Post by lewiscollard »

bcruddy wrote: post #334
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.

It sounds like they're only suspending free accounts for adblockers. At the same time, I don't mind spotify tracking how I use the application. It generates valuable data for their product managers to improve the overall experience. If there's evidence spotify is using this data to track users across the internet, then there's problem.

> It sounds like they're only suspending free accounts for adblockers.

Unfortunately, it is unclear from both the article and the revised terms whether this is the case.

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

#476

Post by godshatter »

marcinzm wrote: post #291
hiccuphippo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy doesn't seem right. It's more like you are at a party and the clown they hired goes on your face to yell something. You have the right to move away and enjoy the party elsewhere. And now they'll kick you out of the party if you don't allow the clown to yell at you, ok, I'll leave the party myself in that case.

Except the clown paid to host the party with the caveat that they get to yell at people. It's their party that you're getting to enjoy for free. You tried to get the benefit without any cost despite he terms being known and now the clown is kicking you out as a result.

Not the person you're responding to. That's between the clown and whoever is hosting the party. Not my problem. I'm just avoiding having the clown yell in my face, given that I also know that the clown is malicious and pulls pranks on people sometimes. Sure, I have the option of buying a card that I can show the clown that will make him go away, but I'd rather just leave instead. There are plenty of other parties out there.

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

#477

Post by EpicEng »

number_six wrote: post #244
dessant wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attitude you describe can easily hurt their business. They may be future paying customers that are exploring your service, or don't have the money yet to subscribe. And even in the latter group there is an opportunity for building brand loyalty. But to see these opportunities, the first step is to not have a hostile attitude towards your users.

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

Right, I really miss the good ol' days when business was all "Hey guy, I like you, here's some free stuff."

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

#478

Post by dmurray »

grogenaut wrote: post #464
kgwxd wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…

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…

Spotify's customers could get some anonymous Spotify accounts and verify they are getting the expected number of ads? Or pay someone to do that for them.

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

#479

Post by CharlesColeman »

pytyper2 wrote: post #390
Changee6 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to go that far. You could let ads still be html iframes with text/image/video/audio content. Just no javascript or cookies. (enforcable via csp sandbox) And "acceptable ads" policies of blockers could require those properties. They wouldn't even need a fixed whitelist or cooperate with specific companies for that, all they have to do is allow iframes with appropriate CSP rules. I.e. it's a vendor-…

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 a tear. Their position of "[we] want all [your] data" is a selfish unwillingness to compromise.

However, I'd be willing to compromise with advertisers who agree to live in a sandbox that blocks tracking (but only as long as the page doesn't get too ad-laden).

Post reply on HN