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

521–530 of 963 posts

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

#521

Post by SamuelAdams »

judge2020 wrote: post #456
some_random wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify: Serves arbitrary, third-party content through known malware vector. Users: Blocks known malware vector. Spotify and 'the usual' HN crowd: shocked_pikachu.jpg

At least now, Spotify can only be downloaded in the Windows store (they discontinued use of the desktop application on Windows 10). As I understand it, W store apps are sandboxed, so something like this reasonably isn't possible anymore (at least without an escape exploit)?

You could run a network-level ad blocker, ie PiHole [1].

[1]: https://pi-hole.net/

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

#522

Post by teawrecks »

akerl_ wrote: post #340
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…

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…

This is just the argument against piracy. And if anyone proved that convenience combats piracy, it's Spotify. If you ever find your users trying to circumvent part of your process in order to make their experience better, the proper response isn't "hold up now, your experience with our product wasn't supposed to be THAT good." It's on their business to figure out how to maximize their customer's satisfaction, while still remaining profitable. Or another service will come along and do it for you.

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

#523

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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…

Adblockers have been around for more than 20 years. It's only in the last few years that they've started seriously cutting into advertisers' business.

There's a reason for that. Most people don't care enough about ads to bother installing an adblocker. It's intrusive, disruptive ads that drive them to do that. It wouldn't have come to this if site owners had taken responsibility for the content of their advertising.

And, unfortunately, most people don't bother to change their adblocker's default settings (and raise holy hell if the default settings allow non-intrusive ads), so the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Bad actors ruin the funding model for everyone.

How did we ever get to the point where letting anyone slap any ads they want over your content seemed like a good idea? Imagine a newspaper or a TV channel running porn ads and saying "sorry, we don't control the content of our ads." They'd be crucified.

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

#524

Post by praneshp »

neivin wrote: post #513
bicubic wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between the dwindling Netflix catalog and increasingly hostile subscription service experience on Spotify, I have found myself flying the black flag again. I still have subscriptions to both, but I will be cancelling them this year. I don't want their shitty analytics payloads, I don't want their shitty anti-adblocker tech. I don't want their shitty tactics of deleting random songs off my playlists. I just want the c…

I canceled Netflix a few months ago. Their catalog is really garbage now. Feels great flying the black flag again with Plex.

> I canceled Netflix a few months ago. Their catalog is really garbage now.

weird, I just upp-ed the screen limit after 6 years because there are so many awesome new things that my wife and I want to watch independently.

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

#525

Post by stordoff »

nickdandakis wrote: post #388
ouid wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1-2 coffees? it's 10 bucks. where are you that 1 coffee is 10 dollars? 10 dollars is not a trivial amount of money, and its WAY above most people's pre-spotify music budget. If you don't spend that money, you have an extra $120 bucks at the end of the year.

Is that really your problem? Even if coffee doesn't cost $5, and it costs $2.50, that's 4 coffees. Or even $1 coffee, that's 10 coffees. Unlimited music streaming for a month is absolutely worth 10 coffees. The coffee example is brought up because _most_ people that claim that $120/year is a lot for them, spend a lot more than that a year on coffee. That's not to say $10/month is trivial. I'm sure it's not a trivial…

> Unlimited music streaming for a month is absolutely worth 10 coffees.

Depends on the person. Much of the music I want to listen to isn't on Spotify, so I'd have to supplement it anyway, and I rotate through artists slowly enough that it is about the same to buy CDs anyway.

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

#526

Post by dx87 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #482
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 is like saying you cannot mute your TV when a commercial comes on. Actually it’s worse. It’s saying you cannot even look away. It’s my TV / my phone / my screen. Me. MINE. If someone else emits some information they make freely available, that in no way entails they have any say whatsoever about what I permit to be visible on MY screen.

Just like you can decide what is shown on your screen, they can decide to not let freeloaders use their service. You always have the option of paying for a subscription if having full control over what is shown on your screen is that important to you.

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

#527

Post by 4ec0755f5522 »

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

I started when x10 camera popups were the thing. Now, it's to control the javascript execution on my computer. It's stupid to allow JS to be run on your computer. (We do it because everything breaks if we don't. But it's still stupid).

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

#528

Post by GuB-42 »

michaelmior wrote: post #271
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…

> 1-2 coffees a month Where do you buy coffee that one coffee costs $10?! (or even $5?) I still don't think it's a lot of money, but not quite so trivial.

It is a common marketing tactic.

A coffee is cheap, most of the times it is less than a dollar, sometimes as low as 10 cents if you brew it yourself from cheap ground beans.

But you probably paid $5-$10 for a coffee on a few occasions too. Though TBH, you may have done it just to rent a seat at Starbucks.

So 1-2 coffees is probably something you correctly value at about $1. By associating it with coffee, they make you think their $10/month service costs you just $1, using the super expensive case as an excuse.

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

#529

Post by lifeisstillgood »

teawrecks wrote: post #522
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…

This is just the argument against piracy. And if anyone proved that convenience combats piracy, it's Spotify. If you ever find your users trying to circumvent part of your process in order to make their experience better, the proper response isn't "hold up now, your experience with our product wasn't supposed to be THAT good." It's on their business to figure out how to maximize their customer's satisfaction, while s…

Thank you. Failures of your business model are not our problem.

The only people who can force me to pay is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Everyone else can persuade me

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

#530

Post by lurchedsawyer »

School-Cotton wrote: post #457
lurchedsawyer wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "We sent a free pizza to their home. How dare they not eat the pineapple toppings!?"

Right, and what’s happening now is Spotify choosing not to send free pizza to those people anymore. What’s the matter with that?

Mostly a privacy and ownership issue: Spotify doesn't own the device receiving their service nor are they paying for the bandwidth used for the ad payload, and it's none of their concern how these are used. In the end it all boils down to whether Spotify's right to run a business supersedes a person's rights of ownership.
Post reply on HN