[bl4ckneon]

I agree with most of the comments here that you should just pay for Spotify... BUT genuine question. If it's just muted then the ad still plays and Spotify and the artist still get their money, so what is the harm?

(the obvious answer would be the advertising company, anyone else or anything else I am not seeing?)

[megla_]

Everyone in the comments is acting like you're comitting a war crime, but the majority sees no problem with adblockers, which are pretty similiar, especially autoclicking ones.

The only one directly losing resources is the ad company, until they get tired of it and stop advertising on Spotify. But Spotify is affordable, so the amount of people that jump through hoops and use these methods is insignificant.

My guess is that you still benefit them more than people who share accounts.

[q3k]

> Everyone in the comments is acting like you're comitting a war crime, but the majority sees no problem with adblockers, which are pretty similiar, especially autoclicking ones.

They're not similar.

1) There is no paid alternative to ads I see in Firefox - eg., I can't pay to support the sites I consume, like I can with Spotify.

2) Spotify ads might track my music listening habits. Web ads track everything I visit in a web broswer.

3) Spotify ads do not attempt to exploit my browser privacy features to deanonymize me.

[megla_]

Similiar as in the only one who is losing money is the advertising company, that's why I've added especially autoclicking ones.

If nobody is seeing ads, nobody is really losing money, Google is just getting it slower.