i just signed up. what's wrong with spotify?
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
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.
Compared to which service?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.