3 ms·
"Upon opening the Spotify app up this morning..." "FORBES contacted Spotify for a response and is awaiting comment." This tells you exactly how much time they
by joopxiv 11y ago
"Upon opening the Spotify app up this morning..."
"FORBES contacted Spotify for a response and is awaiting comment."
This tells you exactly how much time they waited for Spotify to respond. This is 'iterative journalism' at its worst: publish first, investigate later! Completely disgusting.
- beyti 11y agoIf the article is created based on the update from the privacy policy, the last sentence only means that they're just awaiting response from spotify if they'd like to say something. They're not asking anything, just showing the updates to readers; and IMHO it's a nice kind of journalism for me.
- jamesblonde 11y agoApple wrote the article for them. Forbes edited it and published it. That's the real story here, IMO.
- benihana 11y agoYeah you already said that elsewhere, also without any kind of proof or even a hint that it might be true.
- jamesblonde 11y agoDude, that's how the real world works. Hacks do not read updates to privacy policies. They get a tip-off and summary of what to write. I don't need proof. That's how it works.
- mnem 11y agoAh, you just know the truth. You should apply to become a judge. It'd speed the court system up.
- cholantesh 11y agoIt being tinfoil?
- joopxiv 11y agoIf you really think this is such a ridiculous idea, I suggest you read Ryan Holiday's "Trust Me, I'm Lying".
- cholantesh 11y agoAmazon summary looks interesting; I've ordered it. I just feel that it's more often a case of incompetence than deliberate manipulation of the truth.
- dingaling 11y agoWhy should Forbes wait for comment, when Spotify didn't wait for their users? It's not as if this is something that took Spotify by surprise, like a data hack, that would require time to formulate a legally-sound response. They will have been planning and implementing this change for months. They could have issued a press release two weeks ago advising their customers of the upcoming changes, but didn't. Spotify seem to like surprises, so Forbes played one on them.
- jimmytucson 11y ago> Why should Forbes wait for comment, when Spotify didn't wait for their users? That's like asking "why shouldn't Forbes stab their users in the face when Spotify shits on their users chests?" In other words, I don't think he's saying Forbes did Spotify dirty, rather Forbes did wrong by their readers by publishing a story without investigating it first.
- joopxiv 11y agoSpotify does wait for the user's consent. That's the whole point of agreeing to the privacy policy. Apart from that, Spotify doesn't have anything to do with basic principles of journalism, because they are not journalists.
- dingaling 11y agoAny other substantive change to the terms and conditions require prior written notice. For example, slipstreaming in an app update that said 'from right now your monthly fee will be €20' would not be considered sufficient notice. So why should privacy be Any different? In fact in this Cloud Era, privacy terms are probably of more concern to users than another dollar on their subscription. The only reason Spotify didn't give prior notice was to put users in a bind on the spot. Even Google manages to do it properly!
- imglorp 11y agoWhile interesting, it doesn't really matter what they had to respond. The focus was on the policy change, which was fact checked by presenting the document. Some reports don't need two viewpoints, eg as opposed to the normal he said vs she said.