top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (47 children)
  • [–] 165 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Clearly most people care more about other factors than they do about audio quality that isn't even discernable through their Bluetooth earbuds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Streaming sites not including the option to block content is frustrating.

    I remember when Netflix let you hide individual movies so they didn't clutter up the categories. When it was removed there was a rumor that giving it a low score would hide it but that never worked for me. Don't even remember the other services offering an option to hide stuff.

    Really wish that option was common.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You can still do that on YouTube.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I never moved from pandora to Spotify and could never find a good reason to.

    I realize I’m a decade out of the loop, but what did it do better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Pandora was initially antithetical to playlists, the concept was utilizing the music genome project to play songs that are like songs you’ve liked, intelligent radio.

    Playlists probably was the thing Spotify had that pandora didn’t have that made Spotify get big, you can make playlists now.

    I only use pandora because it’s music discovery is so good tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    it's the social features and the network effect. if you want to make a playlist and share it with your friends the easiest way to get them to listen to it is to host it on spotify. also blends, collaborative playlist, jams, and now listening all provide the illusion of connection through a shared listening experience. and it's not so much that these things are better than what we used to have for sharing music, it's that corporations have all killed our ways of sharing music. that's what they really hated about groove shark. artists made more money in the groove shark era, but umg, sony, and warner didn't control how we shared on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah seriously; unless you're an audiophile who spends extra on quality headphones, your Bluetooth buds are probably using the SBC codec, which cuts off frequencies at 16kHz and thus is hardly better than listening to a 128Kbps MP3. (In Android you can see what codec your headphones are using by going into the developer options.)

    And to be honest, if you care enough about sound quality to spend extra on the high res tier in your streaming service of choice, you're probably using wired headphones. Audiophiles don't fuck with Bluetooth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [+] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not OP, but probably all of those still register, only he was using lossless audio as an example of how it's not even that good comparing with other platforms who actually do better by the artists they host. As in, a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye to unethical practices if the product is great, but it's not even that great, comparing with other existing services. Whether or not people actually do care about lossless audio is a different thing, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • I do a bit of both. For awhile I was relying just on algorithms but switching to primarily active management the past few years has really been invigorating. Renewed my excitement for music. When I do use algorithms to discover some new stuff it's being fed mostly from my own curationnwhich is so much better of getting stuck in a loop where the algorithm recommends something, you select some favorites and then it recommends off those. This starts to really dull and homogonize your library after awhile.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I use it because it's free and tolerable when modded (on pc at least), and a lot of my favorite artists drop there. I get to check new releases, and if something isn't there I'll check other platforms. I will never pay for spotify on principle though.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 64 points 1 year ago
    [–] 63 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    At least in the US, I'm absolutely destroyed that people just don't care. They talk like they care, but they just fucking don't. I don't get it at all. They will gripe about how evil and bad something is, then just keep using it. "If everyone else is, so will I" maybe. Group Inertia.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I think it's more that most people just aren't aware of any equivalent alternatives, or in some cases like where there literally aren't any alternatives. Look at phones, both Apple and Google suck and their mobile OSes are terrible but what's the alternative? Sure there's a few Linux phones out there and that's almost an alternative but it's not there yet. You could go with a "dumb" phone, but for most people that's not going to work. So you pick your lesser evil and bitch about it whenever the latest round of enshitification hits.

    If you asked most people what alternatives exist for Spotify they'd probably say Pandora, and maybe Apple Music or Youtube Music and then struggle to come up with anything else. The better alternatives are suffering from a massive discovery problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    What’s an example of an alternative with a really great recommendation algorithm?

    Things like recommendation algorithms are difficult for small companies/individuals to provide. Let alone the library of music.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    People don't wish to help fight the war on drugs. Why should they? Are you destroyed by people's indifference to drug advertising or are you making a general statement not necessarily about this story? Are you okay with legal prescription drugs being advertised? Or is it the illegality that's a moral issue with you??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Legal drugs should not be advertised either. Drugs or other treatments should be prescribed by a doctor based on a review of the actual symptoms and side effects to the patient. A drug advertisement will generally tell you the key words to tell the doctor and may be missing other factors.

    I have symptoms C, L and Q. What treatment plan will be best. Vs. I want drug X because I have symptoms X Y and Z.

    That said, I read the OC as a protest to Spotify and their predatory practices in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Why would people here care that much about this? This kind of material exists on any site that allows user submitted content, and the only solution is aggressive automated moderation, which winds up hurting everyday users. Would you prefer that anyone who uploads a song or podcast that names a drug be automatically removed and have to be manually approved?

    These are low-effort scams to steal credit card numbers, it doesn't seem like any of these had an actual avenue to purchase drugs. They should be removed for sure, but this is hardly some wild breach of responsibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago

    So they realised Spotify hosts Joe Rogan?

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I don’t get the anger or outrage or even mild concern here? Spotify lets people upload their podcasts and music. People abuse that.

    Spotify didn’t do anything wrong, the people uploading this crap disguised as podcasts did. Spotify removed them when they found them.

    Where’s the issue?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It's because we've seen this so many times and are really tired of this: Everybody knows that you have to moderate user generated content. If you provide a upload function for user generated content and don't have a clear moderation policy in place and a moderation team, you will allow scammers, child porn, drug dealers and crypto scammers onto your platform. That has happened hundreds or thousands of times. And then some newspaper will do a report and they will remove some of the mentioned content without doing anything.

    Spotify has smart employees. Some of them even worked at other companies who ran into the same issues. But they still decided to launch the feature like that, mostly because upper management really doesn't want to pay the costs of functional moderation. That is how Facebook went on to be used in the genocide in Myanmar. That is how thousands of minors got abused. Moderate your shit. There is no way around and AI won't help you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I dislike that you can't block NSFW stuff. My son found NSFW stuff on Spotify.. and I had to take it off our Living Room Tv and ban him from using it for now. I think you can block accounts, but there were so many.. Go ahead, search tits on Spotify.. fucking wild to me it's not moderated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    I'd imagine that you could even take podcasts and run them through a speech recognition app much like visual voicemail does. This could then parse the text and flag a podcast for manual review by a human to ban an account, could even auto suspend the account until its challenged or reviewed. You don't even need someone to listen to everything since Podcasts and usually spoke word.

    Hell I bet I could build a pipeline to run on a local server in under a week that does this. Download the audio. Parse it into text. Then parse the text for any trigger words or phrases.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago

    Spotify furious that they aren't getting their cut.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And we're not concerned that they fund and heavily promote on their services extremist content and disinformation by the truckload?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    🌈 Enshittification 🌈 in all its facets. This one's pretty bad though.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Enshittification is not when Spotify doesn’t immediately notice and purge new uploads with scam content.

    Enshittification is when Spotify takes away the free-tier, or makes the ad-free tier have limited ads while raising the price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›