5 ms·

Naive question, but when you sign up to pay for a service you are promised various functions or improvements, one of them is no-ads experience. If company then

Naive question, but when you sign up to pay for a service you are promised various functions or improvements, one of them is no-ads experience. If company then starts showing ads, isn't that breaking at least some consumer-protection laws?

3D30497420 3y ago
I imagine it depends on what's in the terms and conditions. I expect companies structure these to provide considerable flexibility. Plus, I'd guess it also depends on how you define what constitutes an "advertisement". For example, if Amazon/Apple/Netflix puts their newest show at the top of the "Featured" list, is that an ad? What if it is related to another show you watched? What if Facebook suggests trying a new shopping-related feature? To the company, and per their T&C, these may not be "ads".
- phone8675309 3y ago
  > For example, if Amazon/Apple/Netflix puts their newest show at the top of the "Featured" list, is that an ad? Yes, if you can't disable that feature. They're clearly pushing it regardless of my preferences. > What if it is related to another show you watched? Yes, if you can't disable that feature because they are most likely pushing the cheapest crap they can that keeps me watching. > What if Facebook suggests trying a new shopping-related feature? Yes, if you can't disable that feature because I can't tell if they're just trying to be helpful or steer me toward something with higher margins for their benefit. If I can't opt out then it's an ad
leereeves 3y ago
I don't think any consumer-protection laws require a company to continue offering a service forever. They could surely stop the ad-free service and start a new service with ads. But perhaps there are laws requiring companies to get explicit consent and not simply consider it a change in the existing service nor automatically sign people up for the service with the new terms (ads)? I think there should be. I'm not a fan of companies changing their terms at will without clear notification. Clear meaning a plain English description of what's changed, not just "We've changed our ToS, read this long legal document again."
daveoc64 3y ago
Companies word it carefully, like Spotify Premium: "Enjoy ad-free music listening". They still get paid to promote particular artists/songs to you on the home page.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > "Enjoy ad-free music listening". Songs themselves include ads too (https://www.wired.com/2008/09/products-placed/ https://www.wired.com/2008/09/products-placed/) so "ad-free music listening" is no certainty, but I guess we can't blame spotify for that.
Gareth321 3y ago
They're allowed to change the offering. They're not allowed to offer you one thing, but supply another. YouTube is currently testing their legal waters. They currently offer an "ad free" experience with the subscription of Premium. Despite this, they still serve: * In-feed ads. These include ads for content prominence (preferential placement for creators), articles with link-out, ads for Google products and services like purchasing movies and shows in their store, and ads for Google product features. * Modal ads in videos which they facilitate. That is, pop-up ads in content. * Ads for merchandise under the content. * Ads for paid subscription to channels. * In-content ads in the form of creator sponsorships. These are becoming egregious. The official app is absolute GARBAGE now. I can't even turn off shorts anymore. I'm on the verge of cancelling Premium. Once the Digital Markets Act comes into effect in the EU in a couple of months I'll be installing alternative frontends for YouTube which include SponsorBlock.
- kmlx 3y ago
  > Once the Digital Markets Act comes into effect in the EU in a couple of months I'll be installing alternative frontends for YouTube which include SponsorBlock. this is weird. are we sure this is a thing in the EU? because the idea of having some sort of regulation forcing a private company to have their product offered by some other party raises so many issues. it's not like youtube is some sort of public good, it's a product offered by a private company. who pays for the bandwidth, engineers, data centers? will the 3rd party pay for these things? if youtube is forced to break it's own TOS, and this leads to users moving away from YouTube but still somehow taking advantage of YouTube's offerings, why even provide the service at all, what exactly would be the point as the product would be loss making? and will capping access be back in the cards (we can't offer any more of these videos because it will cause losses)? and what about tracking viewers, how can we track these viewers when they're coming in from some 3rd party? I feel like I'm misunderstanding something...
  - vvvvvvvvvvvv 3y ago
    > I feel like I'm misunderstanding something... In the EU it's ok to ask companies to do things, even if it costs them money.

3D30497420 3y ago

I imagine it depends on what's in the terms and conditions. I expect companies structure these to provide considerable flexibility. Plus, I'd guess it also depends on how you define what constitutes an "advertisement". For example, if Amazon/Apple/Netflix puts their newest show at the top of the "Featured" list, is that an ad? What if it is related to another show you watched? What if Facebook suggests trying a new shopping-related feature? To the company, and per their T&C, these may not be "ads".

phone8675309 3y ago
> For example, if Amazon/Apple/Netflix puts their newest show at the top of the "Featured" list, is that an ad? Yes, if you can't disable that feature. They're clearly pushing it regardless of my preferences. > What if it is related to another show you watched? Yes, if you can't disable that feature because they are most likely pushing the cheapest crap they can that keeps me watching. > What if Facebook suggests trying a new shopping-related feature? Yes, if you can't disable that feature because I can't tell if they're just trying to be helpful or steer me toward something with higher margins for their benefit. If I can't opt out then it's an ad

leereeves 3y ago

I don't think any consumer-protection laws require a company to continue offering a service forever. They could surely stop the ad-free service and start a new service with ads. But perhaps there are laws requiring companies to get explicit consent and not simply consider it a change in the existing service nor automatically sign people up for the service with the new terms (ads)? I think there should be. I'm not a fan of companies changing their terms at will without clear notification. Clear meaning a plain English description of what's changed, not just "We've changed our ToS, read this long legal document again."

daveoc64 3y ago

Companies word it carefully, like Spotify Premium: "Enjoy ad-free music listening". They still get paid to promote particular artists/songs to you on the home page.

autoexec 3y ago
> "Enjoy ad-free music listening". Songs themselves include ads too (https://www.wired.com/2008/09/products-placed/ https://www.wired.com/2008/09/products-placed/) so "ad-free music listening" is no certainty, but I guess we can't blame spotify for that.

Gareth321 3y ago

They're allowed to change the offering. They're not allowed to offer you one thing, but supply another. YouTube is currently testing their legal waters. They currently offer an "ad free" experience with the subscription of Premium. Despite this, they still serve: * In-feed ads. These include ads for content prominence (preferential placement for creators), articles with link-out, ads for Google products and services like purchasing movies and shows in their store, and ads for Google product features. * Modal ads in videos which they facilitate. That is, pop-up ads in content. * Ads for merchandise under the content. * Ads for paid subscription to channels. * In-content ads in the form of creator sponsorships. These are becoming egregious. The official app is absolute GARBAGE now. I can't even turn off shorts anymore. I'm on the verge of cancelling Premium. Once the Digital Markets Act comes into effect in the EU in a couple of months I'll be installing alternative frontends for YouTube which include SponsorBlock.

kmlx 3y ago
> Once the Digital Markets Act comes into effect in the EU in a couple of months I'll be installing alternative frontends for YouTube which include SponsorBlock. this is weird. are we sure this is a thing in the EU? because the idea of having some sort of regulation forcing a private company to have their product offered by some other party raises so many issues. it's not like youtube is some sort of public good, it's a product offered by a private company. who pays for the bandwidth, engineers, data centers? will the 3rd party pay for these things? if youtube is forced to break it's own TOS, and this leads to users moving away from YouTube but still somehow taking advantage of YouTube's offerings, why even provide the service at all, what exactly would be the point as the product would be loss making? and will capping access be back in the cards (we can't offer any more of these videos because it will cause losses)? and what about tracking viewers, how can we track these viewers when they're coming in from some 3rd party? I feel like I'm misunderstanding something...
- vvvvvvvvvvvv 3y ago
  > I feel like I'm misunderstanding something... In the EU it's ok to ask companies to do things, even if it costs them money.