7 ms·

It's fascinating how we, humans, are lazy. We're lazy to the point where we'd gladly allow services like Spotify to control our computers just so they can make

It's fascinating how we, humans, are lazy. We're lazy to the point where we'd gladly allow services like Spotify to control our computers just so they can make sure their ad was delivered. We'll even justify it by "well, I really listen to a lot of music". All I want is to push a button and get some bearable-noise during my 8 hours at work. I don't know about the rest, but I really hate when someone makes a fool out of me. I'm a lazy person too, if a service that I like asked me bluntly "hey dude, wanna give us all your info and let us sniff your traffic so we can stick ads in, we're even gonna sell it" - I'd say - sure, you were honest enough, screw it - go ahead, I didn't have to navigate through a wall of text critting me for 9000000 to get that piece of info. But no. No one behaves like that. Long user agreements, service agreements, catchy call-to-actions on websites that promise wonderland filled with unicorns shitting M&M's and what not just so they get those few bucks out of me... Oh well, hello foobar2000 my old friend, seems like I'll un-lazy myself just to spite these prying assholes.

bad_user 8y ago
What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.
- minikites 8y ago
  So you're rewarding them for bad behavior with your money. Think about what this does to their incentives.
  - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
    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."
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    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?
    - minikites 8y ago
      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.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        Nothing forces you to use Spotify.
        minikites 8y ago
        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.
    - c22 8y ago
      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?
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        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.
        8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ___alt 8y ago
  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.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    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?
    - redwall_hp 8y ago
      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.
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        But what if I ain't?
    - mattl 8y ago
      The Deck was one such network. https://digiday.com/media/low-tech-ad-network-deck-ad-blocking-definitely-paying-everyone-elses-sins/ 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 https://www.fsf.org/news/ad-bard
      - dcbadacd 8y ago
        But now there isn't anything available?
        mattl 8y ago
        I'm not aware of one but I'm no longer in an environment where I keep tabs on things like that.
- martimarkov 8y ago
  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.
  - krelian 8y ago
    You don't have to use the service you know. There are alternatives, Spotify doesn't have a monopoly on music.
    - martimarkov 8y ago
      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.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > 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.
- vvillena 8y ago
  Surely the capability to deliver JS is still there, even if you're a premium user. This is worrying.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    Yes, that happens basically with any app you run on your computer, duh.
    - vvillena 8y ago
      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.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  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.
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    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.
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      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".
      - granshaw 8y ago
        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.
- belorn 8y ago
  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.
- furicane 8y ago
  > 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" :)
  - rchaud 8y ago
    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?
- Pimpus 8y ago
  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.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    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?
- g45y45 8y ago
  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.
- 13415 8y ago
  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.
- john-radio 8y ago
  People who use Spotify are equally freeloading, since Spotify's business model grants its artists only pennies on the dollar.
  - PSZD 8y ago
    Pennies on which dollar, exactly?
- dangravell 8y ago
  Who said anything about pirating?
- wasdfff 8y ago
  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.
- beefman 8y ago
  > 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.
pwaivers 8y ago
It isn't lazy to want to listen to unlimited music from an app on your phone. Its an efficient and a very useful service. There are other options (like buying albums), but Spotify makes it easier.
snegu 8y ago
Are people lazy, or do they have much more important things to concern themselves with? I'd rather get work done and spend time with my family than spend time looking for the "ideal" way to listen to music.
larrik 8y ago
To counter this, I got an email from Spotify a few days ago telling me about their terms of use update, and they were very upfront about the ad-blocker crackdown right in the email. I don't think they were hiding anything behind their ToS at all.

bad_user 8y ago

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.

minikites 8y ago
So you're rewarding them for bad behavior with your money. Think about what this does to their incentives.
- BoiledCabbage 8y ago
  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."
- umanwizard 8y ago
  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?
  - minikites 8y ago
    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.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Nothing forces you to use Spotify.
      - minikites 8y ago
        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.
  - c22 8y ago
    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?
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      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.
      - 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
___alt 8y ago
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.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  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?
  - redwall_hp 8y ago
    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.
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      But what if I ain't?
  - mattl 8y ago
    The Deck was one such network. https://digiday.com/media/low-tech-ad-network-deck-ad-blocking-definitely-paying-everyone-elses-sins/ 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 https://www.fsf.org/news/ad-bard
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      But now there isn't anything available?
      - mattl 8y ago
        I'm not aware of one but I'm no longer in an environment where I keep tabs on things like that.
martimarkov 8y ago
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.
- krelian 8y ago
  You don't have to use the service you know. There are alternatives, Spotify doesn't have a monopoly on music.
  - martimarkov 8y ago
    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.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  > 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.
vvillena 8y ago
Surely the capability to deliver JS is still there, even if you're a premium user. This is worrying.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Yes, that happens basically with any app you run on your computer, duh.
  - vvillena 8y ago
    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.
Pharmakon 8y ago
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.
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  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.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    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".
    - granshaw 8y ago
      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.
belorn 8y ago
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.
furicane 8y ago
> 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" :)
- rchaud 8y ago
  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?
Pimpus 8y ago
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.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  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?
g45y45 8y ago
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.
13415 8y ago
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.
john-radio 8y ago
People who use Spotify are equally freeloading, since Spotify's business model grants its artists only pennies on the dollar.
- PSZD 8y ago
  Pennies on which dollar, exactly?
dangravell 8y ago
Who said anything about pirating?
wasdfff 8y ago
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.
beefman 8y ago
> 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.

pwaivers 8y ago

It isn't lazy to want to listen to unlimited music from an app on your phone. Its an efficient and a very useful service. There are other options (like buying albums), but Spotify makes it easier.

snegu 8y ago

Are people lazy, or do they have much more important things to concern themselves with? I'd rather get work done and spend time with my family than spend time looking for the "ideal" way to listen to music.

larrik 8y ago

To counter this, I got an email from Spotify a few days ago telling me about their terms of use update, and they were very upfront about the ad-blocker crackdown right in the email. I don't think they were hiding anything behind their ToS at all.