5 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if they hastily retract this after PR goes AWOL. With antitrust in the works and a world of retailer hate, they shouldn't be playing Orw

I wouldn't be surprised if they hastily retract this after PR goes AWOL. With antitrust in the works and a world of retailer hate, they shouldn't be playing Orwell cards.

jsheard 6y ago
They have in fact walked this back, Pitchfork updated their article right after I posted it. Title changed to reflect the update.
- contingencies 6y ago
  Called it!
- dcreno 6y ago
  Now podcasters must "comply with Amazon’s Creative Acceptance Policies.” Bet those policies slowly drift back towards control of content. edit: sure enough, look here and you'll see that nothing "misleading" or "controversial" can be said: https://advertising.amazon.com/resources/ad-policy/creative-acceptance#prohibitedcontent https://advertising.amazon.com/resources/ad-policy/creative-...
scarface74 6y ago
HN users once again don’t understand what “antitrust” is. Amazon Music has almost no percentage of the streaming music market. Amazon has less than nothing of the podcast market. There are dozens of podcast players where you can just put the feed url in your player and subscribe directly to any podcast - including Apple Podcast.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  When people use "antitrust" inaccurately in the way you're describing, I find it best to assume that they're actually arguing against "biased incentives", and just aren't being precise with their definitions, not that their points aren't valid.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    “Words Mean Things”. This is a site where the overwhelming number of participants are engineers. We are suppose to value accuracy. Getting banned from Amazon’s podcast platform means nothing.