5 ms·

i just signed up. what's wrong with spotify?

• jraph 5y ago
  The DRMs (though that's probably not an explanation to a spike in traffic to cancellation page)
• vkou 5y ago
  It is keeping the most popular podcast in the world on its platform, despite the host breaking Spotify's TOS on the subject of COVID misinformation.
  • sp332 5y ago
    Not just keeping, but paid $100 million for exclusivity.
    • vkou 5y ago
      Well, yes, there's all that money, too, that makes dropping him rather expensive. Unfortunately, it seems that I'm being karmically silenced for speaking an uncomfortable truth - that I've done my research[1] on! [1] About 2 minutes of googling sources that tell me what I want to hear.
  • nomel 5y ago
    > host breaking Spotify's TOS Do you have a reference for this? I've been following this very closely, and this is the first time I've heard he broke the TOS.
    • vkou 5y ago
      https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rules/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rul... > Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health His ivermectin/vaccine stuff breaks the TOS.
      • nomel 5y ago
        I guess that depends on ones definition of "promotes" and even "false". And, "deceptive" requires intent. I imagine this is up for some interpretation.
        • vkou 5y ago
          > And, "deceptive" requires intent. Obviously, it doesn't, because adjudicating this would require building a mind-reading device. Unless Spotify possesses one, clearly, the intent behind this rule is that the intent behind the deception is irrelevant. A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule. > I guess that depends on ones definition of "promotes" and even "false". Yes, and it also depends on what their definition of "Content", "Harm", "Health", "Medical", and "Information". What's your point? Words have generally agreed upon meanings, we aren't just shouting Shannon noise into the ether.
          • ralfn 5y ago
            In criminal law in most nations intent plays an extremely important role. Yet these mind reading devices do not exist. Is it because there are other ways to establish intent? > A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule. Yet somehow those kinds of rules are enforced in a courtroom thousands of times a week. In this context, deception would have been proven by simply proving the person knew the information was untrue. You be surprised how often people publicly admit to that in some other context. And then suddenly "intent" is proven. >Words have generally agreed upon meanings, Especially in a legal context. But that doesn't make the classification of "promoting false information" easier.
  • mdoms 5y ago
    The idea that Spotify is "platforming" Rogan is laughable. They paid him millions of dollars to come to their platform. Spotify is not bringing an audience to Rogan, Rogan is bringing an audience to Spotify.
• hellisothers 5y ago
  From a utils standpoint nothing, I think they’re the best music subscription service on the average. In theory Apple Music (and some others) have better audio quality but most people won’t notice this, I have fancy audio gear and listen to some music on Apple “just in case”.
• mcdonje 5y ago
  The main news item right now is about Joe Rogan disseminating misinformation about the pandemic, and saying racist things. Besides that, they're known for paying comparatively little per stream to musicians. They also engage in rent-seeking behavior. Their strategy around podcasts is to get exclusives, which they can do better than smaller players because of their market position, and it's money they're not spending on improving their platform. They also refuse allowing users to add podcasts via RSS like pretty much all other podcast services. It's common for podcasters to provide upgraded feeds with extra episodes for people who support them on Patreon. There's no way to connect to those on Spotify. The reason they don't allow that is they're trying to push their own solution for that. Again, abusing market position instead of making a good product.
  • mdoms 5y ago
    > Besides that, they're known for paying comparatively little per stream to musicians. Compared to which service?
    • mcdonje 5y ago
      Tidal & Qobuz. Maybe others as well. But those are the ones I'm aware of that pay out more per stream.
    • SecurityLagoon 5y ago
      They all give tiny amounts per play. In the realm of $0.003. Actually buy the music from artists if you want to support them.
• mackrevinack 5y ago
  ive been using and paying for spotify for over a decade and im not going to renew my subscription when it ends later this month. nothing major though, just a mix of having podcasts shoved in my face when i don't want anything to do with them, songs disappearing (not completely spotify's problem i suppose), not having certain songs in the first place, and the effort involved in downloading songs so i can have offline access (which is a bit of a pain when you have multiple devices and change them often) i also used to tell myself i couldn't afford all the music i wanted to listen to, but adding up the money i have given spotify over the last decade im thinking maybe i could have bought a decent chunk of it. so that's what in going to start doing. you could probably find lots more reasons if you search online. spotify paying people peanuts etc etc