Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

791–800 of 963 posts

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

#791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. Of course they have that right. Spotify has no right to restrict how anyone uses their service.

In fact they do have the right to restrict how people use their service.

They're about to trivially prove that exact point by terminating accounts that use ad blockers.

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

#792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. Of course they have that right. Spotify has no right to restrict how anyone uses their service.

In fact they do have the right to restrict how people use their service. They're about to trivially prove that exact point by terminating accounts that use ad blockers.

Ability != right

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

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> your agreement with Spotify on the free tier is "we provide music, you agree to be subject to our ads." If you block the ads, they can then yank the music. Companies have a habit of trying to squeeze all kinds of stuff into their ToS/AUP, hoping they can get away with it. Who'd want to bet Spotify's bans would survive both a) the courts, and b) public opinion? Remember they'd need to win in both.

a) absolutely - they are not stopping you from doing whatever you want on your machine, they are just not allowing to use their service. I don't think anyone would advocate making "ad blocker" a protected characteristic alongside race, gender, sexuality etc b) absolutely - most people either don't use ad blockers, and of those that do, most people are not militantly committed to them. There will be a set of people wh…

I would advocate for legal rights to use an adblocker! If we don’t, it’s going to be banned under CFAA in the future. Ads suck! Nobody has the right to force these on me!

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

#794
post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also frustrating is being hit by a wave of down votes for even tangentially mentioning libretarianism in a negative light, there is a lot of appeal to libretarianism similar to socialism, and every other governmental or economic approach, refusing to discuss the pros and cons just further cements the partisan divide. Just to be clear, libretarianism is not incompatible with regulation - I happen to think that a certa…

For whatever it's worth, I think there's a difference between mentioning libertarianism in a negative light and holding it responsible for society's ills. I think libertarianism is worth debating, and the political Libertarianism practiced in America is often ridiculous and utterly biased against individuals. But I don't think that being refused access to a service if you reject risky and unethical advertising practi…

I agree, yes. Maybe it's a sort of corporate motive that takes hold in each of our countries and in the US it's become infective within the libretarian section. I could just as easily see a twisting of a socialist angled view being twisted in the same way, "Our advertising supports our service in a necessary manner and it'd be unconscionable to deprive any resident the access to our service."

As an aside, isn't it amusing that getting an American education one of the skills that seems to be valued above others is the ability to twist words to whatever B.S. you need them to mean at the time, it's like everyone in the US is an expert marketer and political fixer/spin-man.

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

#795
post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

Actually, I've never had coffee, but I understand your point.

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

#796
post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already do this, there are constant interruptions for 30-second audio ads. Currently, you can turn the audio down, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do something akin to the black mirror episode "fifteen million merits" where you have to look at/listen to the ads for them to go away. The main gripe is using adsense which can still often be used to deliver malware.

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.

Yeah it was black mirror style. You had to listen to the goddamn ad. I used to take off the earphones when the ad played.

It was an annoying enough experience. Although I mostly upgraded to paid option for the high bit rate audio. Music sounds so much crispier.

Making users pay for no ads may not be enough to nudge them over. Offering a premium pro is definitely a viable model.

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

#797
post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you look at starbuck's prices you'll see some drink x being sold as a Venti - 5$, Grande - 4.25$, Tall - 4$, for a while this really annoyed my brain since a Venti is 2x a Tall (or so) so the low price difference makes it silly not to just get a Venti half as often. In actuality the price of what you're buying is contributed to very minorly by the ingredients and much more by the labour and that 4$ might be as close to the floor as starbucks is willing to go. That's a bit interesting and different...

Additionally, good on your baristas for being flexible, though the corporate office might object and come down on them if they found they were offering this, as they're either losing money or making less money serving you then they'd make if they served a different customer - so the time to make your drink would be particularly economically suboptimal.

Anyways, these are mostly fiddly points and my original comment was less about the fact that businesses always did things like this... and more about the fact that they do have the right to refuse. If you go in one day and a different barista is behind the machine, they may refuse your request and so it goes - alternatively maybe your usual barista got a talking to from management and can't do it any more. Either of these cases work, declining partial service is an option for a business... in fact, declining normal service is also usually an option, maybe you're going to a ramen place that's open until 7 and arrive well before, but the owner has a headache and is closing up at 5:30 when you walk in - you're not _owed_ service.

The only exception to this is cases where people have historically been terrible and the government has specifically stepped in, if you were black and starbucks refused to serve you after serving a white customer and before serving another white customer then the onus would be on them to rationalize why they refused service (and they'd probably end up paying a hefty fine or being targeted by a lawsuit).

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

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 c…

> "Ad blocker" is #1 thing that should be installed first on every single browser, everywhere, to block third party ads. Agreed. But I don't block ads just because ads are annoying. I don't even block ads because I don't like being tracked. My reason for blocking ads can be summed up in a single word. Malvertising. As soon as ad networks began trying to spread malware through ads was when ads moved from being a nuisa…

I block ads simply because I don’t want to see them. If a software annoys me I don’t use it. If a website is annoying, I leave. If a website is ok but ads are annoying, I block them.

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

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, the more correct analogy will be to walk into cinema and watch cinema without paying for pop-corn, despite the fact that theater makes most of their profit on pop-corn. I have no obligation to make a business profitable.

>> I have no obligation to make a business profitable. Do we have an obligation to allow script in our browsers? >90% of my "news reading" on the internet is done with NoScript running; from my point of view it's all good, no ads, no GDPR pop-ups, pages load quickly, fewer worries about tracking. It's probably not what publishers want, though.

That's where the question gets interesting! Your browser definitely (under current laws) has the right to refuse to allow NoScript to run, so if a similar program specifically targeted google ads then chrome would not be obligated to support it and could use the laws around your legal right (and lack thereof) to proprietary modify software to order you to cease & desist running it.

I think that websites do, legally, have the right to refuse you service if you run NoScript and some websites go through crazy hoop to exercise that right. I _suspect_ that using NoScript to alter the page is actually illegal under current intent since that usage could cause the software to misperform and potentially cause damages and it violates the agreed upon usage contract on that site. That said, it's _mostly_ unenforceable on a technical level (usually it's at least not cost effective to do) and I personally think it's unethical to force people to run malware to view your content - it needs a clearer definition in the law though, all this stuff is stupid hazy.

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

#800
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…

If Spotify won't respect the users rights and take responsibility and assume liability when Spotify distribute malware, why should should the user respect Spotify rights? Society is built on shared respect and the current online advertisement operates on the opposite model.

The reason why every large service on the Internet is ad-supported is that it does not need to follow advertisement laws. They don't even need to follow computer crime laws. If society would start enforce such laws onto online services we would see a major shift away from ad-supported services.

Post reply on HN