Hacker News Reader

So you're rewarding them for bad behavior with your money. Think about what this does to their incentives.

Then don't use their service. Why is this made out to be difficult. If you want to take/consume their service then pay, for it via ads or subscription.

If you don't like that they have an ad based model, and personally want to boycott their subscription service because of it then do so and buy your own music.

It's not complicated. 'Not rewarding their behavior' is simple - don't use Spotify. Anything else is very transparent, after-the-fact justification of your desire for theft.

"Hey I really like this bike share service, but I don't think it's safe, so I'm gonna steal the bike, improve the safety and then ride it whenever I want. I don't want to reward their behavior of renting bikes I feel aren't safe."

It's totally unclear to me why you think this should be considered bad behavior.

Imagine a grocery store has a promotion - you can get a loaf of bread for free if you listen to a twenty minute advertising presentation. Does this justify not going to the presentation, and just stealing the bread?

A better analogy is a protection racket: pay up or we'll serve ads that might contain malware to your device. If Spotify took responsibility for fixing my computer when it gets a worm from an ad, we'd have a deal that is much more fair.

Nothing forces you to use Spotify.

Absolutely, not using Spotify is better option. My original comment was arguing against "just pay for it" being a good outcome, as it relates to Spotify's future incentives.

You go to the presentation and someone demands you empty your pockets into a bowl that they will take into another room while you watch the presentation, wallet, phone, keys, etc.... You decline and leave, but you already ate the bread! Did you steal it?

No. That's analogous to choosing to leave Spotify after you already listened to some music because you decide you don't like their ads. Which is fine.

I'd say it's more akin to using Spotify with an ad blocker before this change. If Spotify wants to switch to only handing out bread after the presentation obviously that's fine too, but it doesn't make the whole proposition any less shady.

But in this analogy you don’t leave - you stay and keep eating bread. Because that’s exactly what people with ad blockers are doing on Spotify.

Well this would have to be a special kind of bread where the inventory amount does not change when a loaf is consumed.

Bear in mind, this loaf can also only be eaten inside of the grocery store. You cannot leave the store with the bread, because it is welded to the infrastructure of the grocery.

Not paying for a gym membership would be a better example. You're using up available capacity without giving the gym a way to monetize your presence there.

You don't need to run arbitrary third-party software to run ads, period. I'm perfectly fine with ads in an ad-sponsored ads but I'd appreciate if it didn't open my computer to malware infestations.

Can you please link me an ad provider that would allow me to monetize my website without including massive third-party software on my web-page?

If you're the size of Spotify, you have no business using third parties. You should have an ad sales team and be selling inventory directly.

TV companies and print newspapers don't need third parties and invasive tracking to sell ads.

But what if I ain't?

The Deck was one such network. https://digiday.com/media/low-tech-ad-network-deck-ad-blocki...

I tried to get a similar thing started for free software and it ran for a while https://www.fsf.org/news/ad-bard

But now there isn't anything available?

I'm not aware of one but I'm no longer in an environment where I keep tabs on things like that.

It's not just about justification of freeloading. It's about a company being able to push arbitrary stuff to your device masked as adverts. Yeah fine I listen to music for free on your service. Does that mean that everyone should be able to spy on me? Nobody is complaining about voice or image or video-based ads. But running JS and iframes is just arrogant.

Also I'm very pissed off with people who say freeloading. It's not freeloading. I pay with my time to watch or listen to your stupid ad. I should not also pay with my personal data. An ad is just an ad it should not have evolved to the monstrosity of tracking you.

It has evolved in the same way copyright has until we find a way to kill both of them as they are not needed in our world.

You don't have to use the service you know. There are alternatives, Spotify doesn't have a monopoly on music.

I don't use Spotify personally. I have Apple Music, my problem is more with the fact they are now forcing you to run arbitrary 3rd party code to have access to their catalog. Just keep the ads as images and videos and sound and I'll be pretty happy.

I have this problem with websites, apps, social networks, etc. as well. I don't want to be tracked, retargeted and so on. Not because I think ads will influence me or anything but its about my trust in those companies and how they protect my data. When my data gets leaked because they are inadequate at security I don't get money back. I get a message saying "We take your privacy seriously"... And that data can then be used in various other ways to harm me.

> I pay with my time to watch or listen to your stupid ad.

Not if you're using an ad-blocker.

Perhaps the reason you're using an ad-blocker is because you don't want to be tracked, and the only way to do that is to block ads completely. I get it. But you're also using up Spotify's bandwidth and licensing fees (which in turn allow music to be created in the first place), without providing anything in return.

This is only possible because paying and ad-watching customers are subsidizing your behavior. It is the definition of freeloading.

>>Perhaps the reason you're using an ad-blocker is because you don't want to be tracked

I use adblockers to protect myself against malicious content masquerading as ads, which both the ad delivery networks and content platforms have proven unwilling or unable to address to an acceptable extent.

I honestly don't consider this particularly relevant, especially in the case of Spotify which has a paid ad-free option (as opposed to something like cnn.com, where you don't have a choice).

If you want to boycott Spotify for endangering people's computers, go ahead. Heck, if you want to attempt to use Spotify with an ad-blocker, go ahead. I don't feel morally comfortable using ad-blockers, but I won't fault others for using them.

You do not get to use Spotify's free tier, block their only potential revenue stream for that tier, and then turn around and cry fowl when Spotify notices and bans you.

Completely agree. Spotify offers two options: free with ads, or paid with no ads. Completely up to you which one to go with. If you don't like ads they have and option for you. I don't like ads either, and I use an adblocker to block tracking and protect against malware. I also want to use Spotify. So I pay for it. How self righteous do you have to be to complain about this? If you don't like Spotify's model, don't use the service. It's a perfectly valid option, and there are plenty of alternatives.

Advertising can be done without arbitrary code execution. Magazines, broadcast TV, radio, podcasts, movie theaters, billboards, news papers, etc. all manage to do it without that. Spotify already has a way to deliver audio and video to the machine, nothing else is required, and if they used that existing avenue, blockers couldn't stop it.

Audio and video ads are super annoying and I'm reminded of that every time I listen to radio or watch TV, which is why I gave up on both. No thanks.

The issue isn't one of arbitrary code execution. Lets not be hypocrites.

AdBlock Plus has over 200 million installs on the desktop alone. Are you going to tell me that those 200+ million users of AdBlock Plus are concerned with arbitrary code execution? What percentage of those users do even know what that even means?

Between 10% and 20% of Internet users are using ad-blockers. Lets do an imagination exercise and say that Spotify would only serve images for ads. How many of those 10 to 20% of Internet users would whitelist Spotify?

"None" would be my guess.

Whitelisting won't even be a factor because ad blockers won't work against ads delivered along with the main content. At least not without way more processing power, much more complex software, and a lot more volunteers creating filters manually. The current ad delivery methods are what makes the ads so easy to block. So, being unable to block ads, users will either deal with it, pay for ad-free, or leave, and then the real value of the service will be revealed.

I'm not convinced this is as difficult as you describe.

https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/11/15/designing-audio...

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.

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading.

Fuck the money, I’m not letting a site run arbitrary code on my machine, especially when they have a track record of spying and installing malware. They have a right to make a living, I have a right to own my property without having it damaged by casual greed.

Then pay for the plan! That's the point!

Or don't. I've pirated music and movies. I just don't get too mad about it.

My point, put another way: I respect the desire to block JS ads, AND I respect the will a non-critical app in a competitive market to make stupid decisions with their ad policy. AND people who don't like that policy can move to Amazon/Google/Apple/other music platforms, or pay Spotify Premium.

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 paying gets rid of the ads, but it's pretty messed up to sit back and think that you're ostensibly paying for "good behavior" from Spotify w/rt to ad tech and what that technology enables on our devices.

It's easy to say pay or don't use the service, why isn't as easy to say "Spotify, don't be dicks with your ad technology on MY phone"?

If I pay a kid $.25 for lemonade, I'm paying for lemonade. If he says "hey, enjoy a free sample of my lemonade while I tell you how I made it", that's a fair trade-off. It is NOT a fair trade-off for his dad to spike my lemonade with a sedative so I'll want to sit down and give his kid an opening to blabber about his recipe while winking and saying "should paid us that quarter, chump".

You aren't paying to get rid of ads, you're paying to get music. Ads pay for the music, or money can. It's only paying to get rid of ads if you view the music as an inevitable outcome, and this change is Spotify asserting that's not the case.

Since the free plan includes music, they obviously aren't paying to get it.

Dealing with ads is payment.

No, payment is giving money to something. Spotify itself says the ad-infested plan is free.

Payment is the exchange of value. Your attention for their product.

Emotionally manipulating people for profit, harming them not just by annoying them but also by impairing their ability to make rational decisions, is always wrong. And that's what advertising is.

If you sell yourself into slavery, you don't become a slave. If you use a product "in exchange for ads", you don't lose your right to protect yourself from them.

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.

Well sure, then don't use Spotify, what's the problem?

If a business is offering a product at terms you don't like, how exactly is that bad? Just don't use the product.

You mean they're not allowed to complain about it on the internet?

They're "allowed" to do whatever they want, and I'm allowed to think their complaining reeks of entitlement and selfishness.

So if a company X is offering something I would like but on different terms, you think it would be entitled and selfish of me to make it known publicly that I would prefer different terms?

The presumption is that they were using the product against the stipulated terms. Nobody is arguing against free speech and if you think Spotify are awful for serving bad ads you can say so.

But this article is specifically about people using a product against the stipulated terms. Criticizing bad ads is valid in general, but people expect topical discussions to stick to the context. Either clarify you are speaking from a different context or you will get misinterpreted.

I didn't use the term "allowed" to imply there is a free speech argument, but to imply that there is an unreasonable expectation on people's behavior. Expecting that customers should "just" stop using service without complaining about the fact that they are doing so is not a reasonable expectation. People should air their grievances in addition to voting with their feet.

I have no problem with advertisement if they agree to take full liability if any contains malware or breaks the law.

If that requirement is freeloading then I disagree with that definition of the word. They enjoy the benefit of behavior which if it was offline would be illegal, and out competes those service which operate more ethically. Since society currently expect the users to be responsible if their machine get infected by malware, it is fully ethical if they use software like ad-blocks to protect themselves.

> What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading.

I can tell you didn't read carefully what I wrote, but that's fine.

Here's what Spotify tells me: "Spotify gives you instant access to millions of songs – from old favorites to the latest hits. Just hit play to stream anything you like."

Where's "but we'll also monitor you and inject whatever code we can, we might allow our customers to do so too, we don't know what it might be but since we wasted $0.003 to acquire you, we need to make at least $5 off of you and we don't really care what happens to your device or if someone breaches our customer and does bad shit to you."

I believe in reciprocity - and the odds are worse at my side if I "freeload" :)

What you described is more or less covered in the T&C's checkbox you ticked when you created your account.

And even if Spotify had appended their marketing language with the "but we track you, never forget that", would that have somehow made you turn off the adblocker?

I'm not a "freeloader" as I pay for the premium service, but this news is the last straw. I'm unsubscribing and uninstalling, as soon as I figure out how to download my playlists.

I know this news doesn't affect me, but the principle is the important thing.

What principle, exactly? That all businesses should have to offer their product for free?

Can you state in clear terms the "principle" that Spotify is violating?

The technical challenge of getting something for free, without restriction, without digital restrictions management, able to be shared, in an archival form that will last decades is worth 100x the cost for whatever trash Big Media will sell you.

There is absolutely nothing to justify here. Running ad-blockers is perfectly fine in any context whatsoever.

Everybody has the right to control what is displayed on their computer when they browse the Net, and Spotify has the right to cancel free accounts for whatever reason they want to. There is nothing wrong with running adblockers and anti-anti-adblocking scripts, etc., and there is nothing wrong with canceling free Spotify accounts. There is also no cognitive dissonance with running and ad-blocker and being angry when Spotify cancels your free account because of it, it's a perfectly reasonable and consistent attitude.

People who use Spotify are equally freeloading, since Spotify's business model grants its artists only pennies on the dollar.

Pennies on which dollar, exactly?

Who said anything about pirating?

Clicking on magnet links is just as difficult as clicking on a song in spotify, maybe the websites arent as nicely dressed though.

In the U.S., its $10 a month for your entire life. If you live another 100 years, thats $12k that could have bought top top top of the line speakers or enough cds to fill multiple bookcases. We have so many services like this now that are packaged monthly to hide the real cost of long term use. Its like rent to own all over again, except when you stop renting you do not own.

> What's fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading.

I agree. For the past two decades, companies have privatized immense swaths of the digital commons and paid nothing for it, freeloading on the work of the countless public institutions and hobbyists who both created it, and created the culture which attracted billions of "users" to it.

With Spotify it is even worse. They have taken music, a prehistoric participatory artform and characteristic behavior of our species, and are trying to gamify it into a product that is no longer just music and which they own.

For the record I am a musician, and I'm pleasantly well-off so I have a paid Spotify subscription though I rarely use it. I held out until mid-2018, and didn't listen to even a single track on the service before then. Not that there is the slightest moral issue with using an adblocker while consuming broadcasts that contain ads, which I also do.