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

641–650 of 963 posts

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

#641

Post by stale2002 »

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…

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

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

#642

Post by stale2002 »

criley2 wrote: post #543
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Enjoy your ban! I'm always pleased when companies stand up to grifters like you. Go back to stealing mp3s or whatever it is you think you're entitled to.

I am not sure why you are accusing someone of a crime ("stealing").

Installing an ad blocker is within someone's full legal right.

Why are you making false statements regarding what is or is not a crime?

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

#643

Post by WilliamEdward »

colemickens wrote: post #542
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…

It shameful that people mindlessly spend $1000 on the latest fashion, sorry, tech accessory but can't afford a few dollars a month to enjoy the creative output of others.

I am in this predicament, and every one of these people are making up a blatant lie that they can't afford it. What they really mean is they are stubborn. They don't see money logically and clearly, where if they could they would realise their hidden costs far exceed $10 a month... Things like coffee, gas. They don't realise it racks up $10 $15 and $20 dollars behind the scenes. But theyre happy to pay for that... why? Because they don't have to see it go. They don't have to think about it. That's why people dont like subscriptions. Spotify is extremely affordable, for literally everyone who can afford an internet connection. People are lying about why they don't want to pay for it; I'm young and poor and to tell you the truth even i can afford it, I'm just way too stubborn.

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

#644

Post by zeeZ »

dspillett wrote: post #77
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. This is why I started blocking ads at the network level last year, after resisting blocking them at all for so long before that. A number of popular sites (imgur.com being the worst offender, but certainly not the only one) hosting adverts that attempted drive-by downloads, tried to access…

Here's two more for the list opening their site on a mobile browser:

On a data connection redirected me to my ISP's game shop that apparently lets me buy crappy games for I don't know what with one click via phone bill.

Multiple redirects to a website that claims my phone is infected while maxing out the CPU and triggering permanent vibration.

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

#645

Post by grawprog »

munk-a wrote: post #621
grawprog wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah...I dunno maybe the baristas are more accomodating at the one I go to but they're usually pretty happy to make things like that and charge less for it.

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

#646

Post by stale2002 »

fastball wrote: post #436
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…

If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. It's an online service, not a piece of personal property.

> If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service.

OR, he could install an ad blocker. It is completely legal to use ad blockers. Thats the law. If you don't like the law, then go change it.

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

#647

Post by jancsika »

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…

"Ad blocker" is #1 thing that should be installed first on every single browser, everywhere, to block third party ads. Then we browse. Heck, that browser Brendan Eich is working on comes pre-installed with one. So this isn't some fringe position I hold. It's basic web hygiene.

> 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?

No. But I get the sense you're trying to express moral indignation at such users, and I don't see the logic behind that. "I like $site_owner therefore I whitelist $arbirary_third_parties whose behavior cannot be controlled nor even really measured by $site_owner" isn't a workable/scalable lesson to try to teach users.

To be clear, I also don't see any reasonable argument to be morally indignant about Spotify blocking the blockers. This is the web as it currently exists.

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

#648

Post by WilliamEdward »

sotojuan wrote: post #640
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find someone talking any sense. Is it really the case that most of HN are listening to Spotify all day every day and blocking the ads? Why not just pay for it!?

Seems to me a lot of hackers/tech people get off getting around paying for stuff, even if they make well over six figures.

This is the real issue here. If you can afford to be on hackernews, you can afford $10 a month. People just have cheapness deeply ingrained into their psyche as a pleasure response.

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

#649

Post by baddox »

fastball wrote: post #436
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…

If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. It's an online service, not a piece of personal property.

I believe I have the right to choose whenever possible which resources my computer downloads and what code my computer executes. That includes selecting which parts of a specific website or application I download and execute.

If Spotify wants to refuse to fulfill requests for one resource (e.g. songs) separate from requests for another resource (e.g. ads), I have absolutely no problem with that. But if Spotify chooses (as appears to be the case, at least before this account suspension policy) to fulfill both requests independent of one another, I believe I have the right to make either request, both requests, or neither request.

In other words, I have absolutely no qualms with users using ad blocking software, just like I have no problem with users using firewalls, antivirus software, or content restriction software. And I also have no problem with Spotify attempting to prevent this activity, either by making ad blocking technically infeasible (radio figured this out over 100 years ago), or by suspending accounts that violate their terms (especially free accounts, since the customer would have no case that Spotify owes them a refund or compensation).

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

#650

Post by jamiek88 »

dewey wrote: post #485
judge2020 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't mix my paid-for (ripped) CDs and paid-for MP3s/AACs with streams in one app It's not an optimal solution, but iTunes can import songs from CDs, and you can add other mp3s to your library, but it doesn't cloud sync across devices. Another solution is Google Play Music, which can import your iTunes library (and CDs indirectly from iTunes) and does do cloud sync.

iTunes can do that too if you use iCloud Music.

iTunes Match combined with Apple Music gives me everything.

Family sub for $14 month and $25 year for match to keep all my music even dodgy mp3s safe from bitrot is well worth it.

I move dozens of times a year, I no longer have to haul books and cds, I for one welcome my digital overlord.

Post reply on HN