[Pharmakon]

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]

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]

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".

[delecti]

You aren't paying to get rid of ads, you're paying to get music. Ads pay for the music, or money can. It's only paying to get rid of ads if you view the music as an inevitable outcome, and this change is Spotify asserting that's not the case.

[anoncake]

Since the free plan includes music, they obviously aren't paying to get it.

[delecti]

Dealing with ads is payment.

[anoncake]

No, payment is giving money to something. Spotify itself says the ad-infested plan is free.

[granshaw]

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.

[Pharmakon]

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.

Thst kid would be arrested, because it’s plain to see from a legal and moral perspective that it’s wrong. Besides, it’s not like that at all.

What it is like is a radio station threatening to cut off service to people who switch channels or turn down volume during ads. This is a problem with the business model, and using TOS tricks to try and twist people’s arm. If they want to be sub only then by all means, but if they want to use an ad model as well then they incur some risks with that. I’m also not clear that it stops with the “free” service only.

Personally I don’t use Spotify, because I like to own my music, and I trust in their business model’s longevity about as much as I believe in fairies. When companies have to threaten their customers to make a business model work, the model is already fucked beyond repair. Advertising on the internet isn’t compatible with the existence and proliferation of ad blockers, and I bristle when a company makes a move to try and undermine autonomy to shore that model up. Moreover if Spotify does it as people accept it, other companies will try to follow suit.

[umanwizard]

Well sure, then don't use Spotify, what's the problem?

If a business is offering a product at terms you don't like, how exactly is that bad? Just don't use the product.

[Retra]

You mean they're not allowed to complain about it on the internet?

[umanwizard]

They're "allowed" to do whatever they want, and I'm allowed to think their complaining reeks of entitlement and selfishness.

[Retra]

So if a company X is offering something I would like but on different terms, you think it would be entitled and selfish of me to make it known publicly that I would prefer different terms?

[hnra]

The presumption is that they were using the product against the stipulated terms. Nobody is arguing against free speech and if you think Spotify are awful for serving bad ads you can say so.

But this article is specifically about people using a product against the stipulated terms. Criticizing bad ads is valid in general, but people expect topical discussions to stick to the context. Either clarify you are speaking from a different context or you will get misinterpreted.

[Retra]

I didn't use the term "allowed" to imply there is a free speech argument, but to imply that there is an unreasonable expectation on people's behavior. Expecting that customers should "just" stop using service without complaining about the fact that they are doing so is not a reasonable expectation. People should air their grievances in addition to voting with their feet.