Spotify now requires a Facebook account to sign up. - <AUTHOR> http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/can_you_sign_up_for_spotify_without_facebook?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBrooksReview+%28The+Brooks+Review%29 <comment><USER3> This is a bizarrely short-sighted move.

I have to wonder if Spotify has fallen victim to the siren's lure of "social". Perhaps they believe their future lies in integration with the social graph and news feed. If so (IMHO), they are sorely mistaken.

I believe some services already have you tweet or post that you've listened to a particular song. Zuckerberg seems to believe in "sharing and more sharing" [1] and automatic sharing. What would be the end result of this? On a particularly music-filled day I might send 100+ posts about songs I've listen to? Really? People will _ever_ look at that?

If it's part of the main news feed, it's spam. If it's not, nobody cares... except Facebook, who can mine such data.

And maybe Spotify except... they already have access to this data (for their subscribers). It just makes no sense.

Spotify is also late to the party (in the US at least). Any kind of restriction like this is incredibly risky. Other established players don't have this restriction. While you can argue that "normal people" don't care, who recommends such services to family and friends? It's us.

And any player in the music space would be remiss to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, being Apple's iTunes. iCloud launches soon. Honestly I think it'll kill a few of these "upstarts".

Also, I am less than convinced of the utility of mobile streaming. Bandwidth and connectivity are still issues. Increasing storage and all-you-can-eat subscription models seem like a far better solution (IMHO).

[1]: [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/zuckerbergs- unspoke...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/zuckerbergs-unspoken-law- sharing-and-more-sharing/)

<comment><USER4> I signed up without connecting my facebook account to spotify (or at least, giving it permissions), and there have been multiple nag screens when I start spotify now to connect to Facebook, some without a close button, where I would just deny the facebook connection request. I wonder how long they will let me skip the publishing connection to facebook.

<comment><USER5> I've had the same problem. On the rare occasion that I can launch Spotify without it crashing it forces me through a bunch of modal dialogs begging me to connect my Facebook. Needless to say they won't be getting any more of my money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is just the beginning. Facebook and Spotify set a nice precedent there to make it en-vogue to just provide a Facebook login for services in the future.

For whoever builds the service, it's (marginally) easier to just use FB as an authentication provider and they even get to spin it as "with us, you don't need to store the 1000st password - you can just use Facebook".

For Facebook, of course, it's great too as it is one more thing to force people to stay logged in, which in turn is much better data for them.

The end users probably wouldn't care either as they are mostly logged into Facebook anyways and if not, it's easy for them to just log in.

The only losers are us professionals who know about the implications of such a move and who care about the loss of privacy.

And of course the people who had their facebook account suspended for either legitimate reasons or just some oversensitive SPAM protection algorithm. These people are now locked out of their, possibly even paid, account, unable to access it (and remove credit card info). Of course these will be the minority and people won't care.

Until it's them that are affected.

I can understand that in this day and age you want to provide the users with an option to authenticate with something else than yet another username and password. Google, Twitter, Yahoo or even any OpenID provider (maybe your own). Sure.

But just Facebook? This is trouble waiting to happen.

I'm saying this as somebody who can't have Spotify anyways due to the complete brokenness of the licensing market, but this still concerns me as it's just another precedent and I'm just waiting for another service I love to force me to use Facebook.

<comment><USER7> I'm start to see a trend (very very early stages) of sites that simply don't require a login at all. I'm thrilled about this, as the need to login to every website has gone too too far in my opinion. If you absolutely must maintain state through sessions, simply send the user an email with a temporary token to create a new session (Staticloud is one that does this). Email is the universal identity controlled by no one entity.

<comment><USER8> Isn't this the basic idea behind BrowserID

<https://browserid.org/>

(with the extension that the 'clicking on the session link' could one day be automated behind the scenes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A reply from Darren, a Spotify employee:

"Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.

This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used. "

This is asinine.

<comment><USER10> _This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used._

Actually it does, based on the FB Terms [1]:

4.1.: _You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook [...]_

4.2: _You will not create more than one personal profile._

[1] <https://www.facebook.com/terms.php>

<comment><USER11> And what are they going to do? Shut down your fake account?

As far as I can tell, they are only doing checks against obvious spammers. It's not like they have a team of people doing detailed background checks on each and every signup that comes through. That would be impossible to do. As long as you create a reasonable persona, they are not going to hunt you down. There will be no serious repercussions.

<comment><USER9> I do hear, on occasion, of Facebook closing down someone's account. I wonder what Spotify does if you are a paying member and your Facebook account is closed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This strikes me as an unwise move on Spotify's part. Allowing integration with Facebook as they had before was fine. But _forcing_ people to sign up with a Facebook account? Not only are they eliminating a large group of people who would like to sign up and don't have a Facebook account, but they're also tying their fate as a company to a third-party.

I have a feeling that this was a condition that Facebook insisted on in return for Spotify being used for Facebook Music. I hope the deal turns out to be worth it.

I seem to recall a post where they said that people who linked their Facebook accounts bought and share more music. And as a result of the deep integration with Facebook, they'll probably have a sharp increase in their growth.

I just hope that this is a temporary condition and that they eventually allow other methods of signing up. Otherwise, they might as well just be acquired by Facebook.

<comment><USER13> They might have been forced to do this, remember, Spotify is not an independent company, they are a puppet of the recording industry, they have a strong interest in connecting with the social graph.

<comment><USER14> "Spotify is not an independent company, they are a puppet of the recording industry"

Well put.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was just about to sign up for Spotify (was on the things to do today list I have in front of me), and now this. Well they can forget about that.

<comment><USER16> Same. Switching to Spotify from Pandora was on my list of things to try.

Now, I guess not. I would have paid them, too.

This is absolutely ridiculously stupid of them to do. They alienate potential customers, but more importantly, _they do not own their customers_.

If the Facebook relationship goes sour, Spotify is still permanently tied to them.

<comment><USER17> I like the Spotify UI much better, but Grooveshark is pretty good too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Let this be a reminder. If you use a streaming music service, they can pull you any stupid trick. If you do not accept, well, you'd better hope there is an alternative the provides a comparable catalog.

Once you own non-DRMed music, they can't take it away.

<comment><USER7> Subscription music streaming is basically a commodity at this point though. One can drop Spotify and join Rdio at no real loss (I think you can even import playlists).

<comment><USER13> Until Rdio pulls your plug.

Streaming services are not reliable, neither is the cloud. Hard currency is the value, its not like storage is expensive any more, there is no reason to not own your own collection and be the boss of your domain.

<comment><USER19> But the ability to own my own music isn't going away because I'm paying for Spotify. If I stop, then I'm in the same position that I was before. I've not got music any more, but I'm not paying any more. If I decide to start paying for Grooveshark instead, then I've not lost anything.

Storage isn't expensive, but managing files is a pain. Especially if you have to manage it across multiple devices. I just want to listen to some Nujabes _, do I really have to care where it's saved, or whether I'm on my work PC, my laptop, or the media center downstairs? And that's before you get into the pain of syncing stuff onto your phone...

I pay for the convenience of not having to pirate.

(_I picked this example because it is both what I am listening to now, and for the irony of it being unavailable on Spotify.)

<comment><USER20> > Storage isn't expensive, but managing files is a pain. Especially if you > have to manage it across multiple devices. I just want to listen to some > Nujabes, do I really have to care where it's saved, or whether I'm on my > work PC, my laptop, or the media center downstairs? And that's before you > get into the pain of syncing stuff onto your phone...

This sounds like a technological problem, and one that could be easily solved if someone put a little elbow grease into it.

> I pay for the convenience of not having to pirate.

Well, Spotify customers are clearly paying for the inconvenience of having Facebook have access to all their data as well. I'll take piracy over Facebook having access to my information any day.

And I don't know why people make piracy sound like such a difficult thing to do. It seems absolutely trivial to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> From the (very pissed) comment thread on getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/can_you_sign_up_for_spotify_without_facebook?

"In the 90's we had to deal with Windows-only software. Now we have Facebook- only software. Great."

<comment><USER22> Microsoft became dominant because Gates is the most ruthless businessman on the planet.

Facebook is becoming dominant because humanity in general can not grow up from its glory days in college-rules.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is a sign of desperation from Spotify. Their product is far from unique, and only really interesting because it has better PR, more apps, a better library, and a slightly more legit licensing setup than the competition.

None of those are big enough barriers to entry to keep even the small players away, meanwhile the big dogs are starting to show a _lot_ of interest in streaming music (admittedly for music you "own" at the moment, but it would surprise noone if this were to change overnight).

Apple has the marketing weight and a history of solving music licensing issues, Google has a track record of throwing money at problems to solve them, and Amazon is just about to make a major hardware play.

Spotify's only real hope was to latch onto the latest big thing (conveniently an infrastructure provider, so unlikely to launch a direct competitor) and hope to ride to success on someone else's coat-tails.

I have no idea what the contracts between the two companies look like, but I would have to imagine that they are heavily in Facebook's favour. After all, it would be a lot easier for Facebook to replace Spotify with another provider than it would be for Spotify to replace Facebook.

<comment><USER24> Desperation? How do you figure? They have a sweet partnership with Facebook. That doesn't sound desperate to me.

 _Their product is far from unique, and only really interesting because it has better PR, more apps, a better library, and a slightly more legit licensing setup than the competition._

Slightly more legit? I think the phrase you are looking for is "completely legit, as opposed to some of the others who are lawsuit-bait-on-a-stick."

 _After all, it would be a lot easier for Facebook to replace Spotify with another provider than it would be for Spotify to replace Facebook._

Only if that other provider had the same kind of licenses with the record labels. At this point, Spotify is far ahead of the pack at that game.

<comment><USER23> _Desperation? How do you figure? They have a sweet partnership with Facebook. That doesn't sound desperate to me._

We don't know it's a sweet deal. My gut feeling is that it isn't, but that's by-the-by. We don't know anything.

 _Slightly more legit? I think the phrase you are looking for is "completely legit, as opposed to some of the others who are lawsuit-bait-on-a-stick._

From the point of view of the _users_ it really is only slightly more legit. From the point of view of the content providers, slightly less legit is not the same as illegal, and from the point of view of the service providers, legal and and a one-off court case is better than legal and ongoing licensing fees.

You also appear to be assuming that Spotify are the only licensed game in town, and will continue to be. This is, of course, trivially untrue (Rhapsody).

 _Only if that other provider had the same kind of licenses with the record labels. At this point, Spotify is far ahead of the pack at that game._

You appear to be assuming that getting those licenses is difficult. It really isn't. If Spotify managed it, any competent competitor can also do it -- after all, the labels have no particular loyalty to a small Swedish online radio network.

<comment><USER24> _You appear to be assuming that getting those licenses is difficult. It really isn't. If Spotify managed it, any competent competitor can also do it -- after all, the labels have no particular loyalty to a small Swedish online radio network._

Spotify is far from a _small Swedish online radio network_ ; here in Europe they are far and away the market leader. They have over a million accounts in Norway alone, which is phenomenal penetration in a country of 5 million.

Second, getting those licenses was incredibly difficult for them; the negotiations to enter the US market took several years. There is absolutely no indication that the record labels are prepared to give similar terms, or even any terms at all, to other competitors. Again, here in Europe, I know of several firms attempting to compete with Spotify, and they are getting hung up on precisely this point.

<comment><USER23> Spotify really is _tiny_. They make "a profit of €5m or less" -- [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/28/spotify- on-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/28/spotify-on-track- first-profit)

<comment><USER25> You are right, they are not big, but turnover (Eur 59mn) is the P&L metric that counts as a matter of size, not profit.

Or you can have fun with GM having become massively negatively sized when it reported a $4.3bn loss in 2009...

<comment><USER23> Sure. And if you compare Spotify's turnover with that of the big dogs I mentioned earlier (Apple, Google, Amazon) with whom they are bound to eventually compete directly, they are still _tiny_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Spotify support staff quote from that discussion thread

\-- Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account set up.

This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to be actively used. \--

Couple of things to note:

1\. If you already have a Spotify account, you don't have to connect to Facebook.

2\. They seem to be encouraging a bogus Facebook account as a way to use Spotify "privately"?

<comment><USER27> Hilarious that internal staff are recommending ways to "get around" the requirements. This shows, or possibly proves to me that this decision was a last minute condition set by FB and the Spotify staff are probably not uniformly thrilled about it.

<comment><USER24> Or that they realize that a tiny but vocal minority is going to gripe about the decision, and that for these folks a work-around might be the best solution.

<comment><USER26> This means that while one can claim privacy of their listening habits on Spotify from their social circle, absolutely no one can claim privacy of what they do on Spotify from Facebook.

Spotify just gave Facebook a terrific amount of analytics data that will help Fb market music and drive sales better than Spotify itself does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am sick of everything being social. I listen to and read things I enjoy and often don't want to share it with the whole world. For example battle.net in SC2 tries it's damn hardest to make me post achievements and connect with my friends online, and I just want to play a game alone when I happen to have some free time. That kind of game wasn't social for me in the first place, and I don't want it to be. Same with my spotify usage, I want to listen to the radio, I don't want the whole world to know I am listening to jazz radio at the moment.

<comment><USER22> I agree, and I have a "nutty" conspiracy theory to explain why things are this way:

Social media is simply the middle class and the tax payers paying for investments in technology. The U.S. government inflates the money supply, through bailouts and zero interest loans, for banks, who refuse to lend to the general public. However, this money can not sit on the sidelines, since inflation the cash itself creates cause it to lose value so tons of it end up in wacky technology investments.

It does not matter which type the investor is — angel or some other sort of creature. A billionaire or a friendly neighbour. Everybody wants to invest as much money they get from banks as loans and as little of their own as possible.

The money the banks give ultimately comes from the middle class that consumes these services (can't really call them products can we?) in the first place.

Thus the middle class is paying a bunch of middle men and lucky dorks with it's own money to invent these services and they will be later paying lots more to "enjoy" them.

Nevermind the loss of privacy, which is simply an icing on the cake.

Question: if these are social technologies shouldn't the State be doing these types of investments in the first place?

Or if they are social in the other sense, in terms of authentic grass-roots and anti-state citizenry — shouldn't social media be about personal blogs, news feeds, videos etc..?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This may make good sense from spotify's point of view without knowing all the facts but it looks like it makes very little sense.

Spotify and facebook are two unrelated services that users get to apply the 'binary or' truth table on. None, one or both. To force users to use both communicates that spotify sees only one possible exit strategy at this point, facebook or bust, and facebook has just strengthened their hand in the negotiations for any buyout to the point where spotify is now basically just an extension of facebook.

If spotify does not want to play ball on fb's terms from now on facebook has the ability to pull the rug right out from under them.

I wonder what the missing bits are here, there has to be a lot more than meets the eye for spotify to do this.

<comment><USER30> Assuming Spotify is not run by stupid people, money would be the obvious reason (and the only one I can think of off hand).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The million-dollar question now seems to be if existing Spotify accounts will be silently converted to Facebook accounts behind-the-scenes. Such accounts might even be created as completely locked-down private Facebook accounts available to no one else, but it opens the door for the slow erosion of the privacy of those accounts into something Facebook can monetize.

I'd run, not walk, away from any Spotify subscription.

<comment><USER32> I hadn't considered this, guess I won't be using my spotify account anymore, at least until proven false. Ungh why is everyone tieing into facebook, they are ignoring what, 6.5 billion people (actually, I wonder what % of the world's population is internet connected, since that's the real # they are ignoring).

<comment><USER33> Roughly 2 billion people in the world have access to the Internet. 800 million of them are _active_ Facebook users (30 day active). Last week 500 million users logged into FB in a _single day_.

Facebook is a very popular service that makes perfect sense to integrate with. Don't forget that they are also "ignoring" anybody that doesn't have broadband; streaming all your music over ppp or metered wireless isn't very desirable.

<comment><USER32> True but those people aren't a good fit for their service to begin with. Non- facebook users are not, by default, bad fits. Big difference. Hell I would bet at least some of FBs user base is also in that category of crap internet.

Cutting off arbitrary users who aren't bad fits for you is a good way to limit your user base. Sure it's 700-800 million people, but not all of the ones who use FB are going to want your service, and if it is any good some who don't use FB will. Why limit yourself that way? Especially when they already supported non-FB accounts for everything but the social features, so the work had already been put in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra In other words, to use this streaming service you have to submit your real name to a company you'd rather not want to, and stay logged in* so it can spy on your every move on the web.

* Not sure about this part. You probably lose your web spotify session if you log off facebook (?), but your desktop app session would probably not be affected.

<comment><USER34> I think it's the opposite. It was already a paid site, so of course they have your billing info. This is the first indication they're coveting my data (at least w/o facebook connect turned on there are no recommendations to speak of on spotify)

<comment><USER35> It's not a paid site, they use the freemium model. I have an account and they don't have my billing info. Millions of other people are in the same boat.

(I also will never use anything that requires a Facebook login other than Facebook itself.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There are already doubts on number of real users in facebook's 750m user base. I guess things like this will increase the dummy accounts.

</comment><comment><USER37> I once made a site that only allowed sign in via Twitter. That was a huge mistake. Do not segment potential users by login mechanism, more often than not you will raise the barrier of entry from potential to not.

<comment><USER33> or don't rely on a service with only 200 million total (not active) users

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> While they are at it, might as well announce the acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER39> As a Facebook user, why exactly do I want to see a notification about each and every song that 100 different friends are listening to at any given point in the day? Add in the fact that Rdio does the exact same thing (spam my Facebook "ticker"), and it's even more ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER40> I disabled offline access and pushing content to my wall permissions for Spotify on Facebook (under Account Settings, Apps). Mainly because of complaints I was spamming walls... Still works with the most basic permissions, but sleazy it adds them by default.

<comment><USER40> I lied, started Spotify again this morning, and all my Facebook friends were gone. Apparently it really does need the "offline" permission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> In a way this could be a decision to simplify the login process for the end user. Then again, if that was the case they should have supported Google, Yahoo and all other OpenId providers. Also there seems to be no reason to completely remove the native sign up, especially since they have already made the effort to create full support for it. Guess just like the recent trend in FB, they also just want to do an experiment and see how the users will take it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I use Spotify and had been recommending them to friends as well. I know several of my friends don't have Facebook, so this will probably stop them from signing up.

As far as automatic sharing goes, I've already told several of my friends that they can change their sharing to the "only me" setting so that they're not spamming what they're playing on Facebook.

I enjoy Spotify, but it is kind of a hassle to have to change settings to make it usable.

</comment><comment><USER43> One of the principal investors in Spotify is... Facebook.

There is nothing like having free money thanks to the billions of Golman Sachs, we will see how much they recoup.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can anyone figure out where to delete their Spotify account in the web UI? I don't even think it's possible. This move to require Facebook is ridiculous IMHO and I want no part in the company's services anymore.

</comment><comment><USER45> Facebook is a dangerous social experiment. It's not a 'virtual passport'. Rather, it is a 'virtual bank', except they don't store financial information about the users, but everything else. And that is an unimaginable amount of power.

Given that their intentions are different from their user's (they want profits, users want... to share photos), it is not hard to assume that Facebook does and will use the user data in order to maximize profits or grip on power.

I think that nothing good will come out of this marriage of Spotify and Facebook.

Facebook gains a lot of meta information about the Spotify users (and music taste tells a huge amount about a person), whereas Spotify is reduced to being a convenient and easily replace-able bit pipe.

Now they'll be able to run their social algorithms based on music habits and offer us the best, most relevant and unique crap for sale on the market.

Or one day the government decides to isolate the listeners of The Doors and deny login to every site that uses facebook as a virtual passport.

</comment><comment><USER34> Ugh. I signed up two weeks ago and have been recommending them to friends. Now this. Why on earth does this make sense for Spotify?

<comment><USER27> I would guess this was a requirement to get the partnership with Facebook done. "Either require a FB login or we'll go with someone else" would be a hard condition to say no to if you were Spotify considering how powerful FB is in the US market.

<comment><USER46> Are there alternatives to Spotify's current business model of free on the PC?

<comment><USER47> The legality of Grooveshark's business model is Groovehark's problem. Just using it passively as a music consumer is likely fine.

<comment><USER46> I'm aware of Grooveshark but, as you said, it is questionably legal. It has long been removed from the iOS App Store.

I can't help but wonder if these were the onerous terms that Apple would not agree to with Ping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Not a spotify user but I feel gross and icky just reading about this. This is so transparent. I wanna take a shower

</comment><comment><USER49> They should talk to the ton of services that built themselves around Facebook, only to see their app be killed without any given reason, killing their whole business.

</comment><comment><USER50> I know I'm being a total pleeb, but given the remarkable access to the music I want to listen to, at a very cheap cost, I'd probably be willing to sign up for a mandatory mayonaise delivery service to get access to Spotify.

<comment><USER51> Well, if you'd like to graduate from plebehood, you can run your own mobile music server with something like Subsonic. I have no affiliation, I just discovered them last week:

<http://www.subsonic.org/>

<comment><USER52> I'll second subsonic. I've been using it to stream my music collection the last few weeks. Works well even despite a 40 KBps connection on the source computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Facebook give's them an on-stage keynote plus smooth Spotify integration (just check out that gorgeous install flow) and they give Facebook mandatory FB accounts in return. Seems like a deal rather than a "move".

</comment><comment><USER54> I've yet to see a positive comment regarding this new feature, but I'm wondering, has that anything to do with the type of site that HN is?

There's been a lot of anti-Facebook chatter recently, most of which I agree with mind you, but given the backlash so far regarding this new restriction, do you think there's really enough weight behind these online discussions to make them change their minds? Particularly if there's a contract sitting in a drawer, saying they must take this course of action, regardless of user/customer sentiment.

<comment><USER55> It's a fair point. Here's my anecdote: I use Facebook solely via my "spouse firewall"; that is, I don't have an account or use it, my wife just lets me know anything I need to know about through it. She is probably a straight down the middle average Facebook user; daily-but-light use, has learned just enough to squelch people she needs to squelch, the standard mix of friends, family, and old high school co-attendees, etc. The only priming I've done is to remind her that you shouldn't allow Facebook to have the canonical copy of family valuables; upload whatever photo and video you like as long as we still have the originals somewhere.

She's definitely been getting increasingly frustrated by their grabbiness, and has been coming to _me_ with stories about Facebook and privacy on the Internet. Granted, that's because she knows I'm interested, but we don't move in the same circles online, which means that these stories are indeed penetrating further than just the HN bubble. She's nowhere near ready to dump the service yet, but the idea is clearly thinkable.

(Anecdote? Certainly! Let me know when you figure out how to run a repeatable study on this topic.)

To be honest, if Facebook IPO'ed tomorrow, I think I'd pass. I'd probably miss out on an initial increase, but I bet in 2014 Facebook will not be as dominant as it is now, and their growth (not their survival, but their growth) depends on that not happening.

<comment><USER54> Funnily enough, I've noticed a good few of my own non-techy friends have been pinging about a few privacy related topics, and how Facebook have been 'grabby' as you so eloquently put it :)

I do have my own account, and certainly use it far too often to share far too much, but I've been almost anal with restricting 3rd party access to my personal feed of posts.

That said, I would absolutely stop using Spotify if I felt that my listening habits were being forcibly fed to Facebook, despite my auto-scrobbling to Last.fm

 _edit: typo_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Something else must be in play for such a great standalone service to give the keys to their front door to Facebook. I'm sure tons of time went into this decision and the result was either faster adoption or added sugar to a partnership deal. Either way, I'm interested to see how this plays out and to see what the backup plan is if it all goes to shit.

</comment><comment><USER57> This is only going to mean 2 things. A) Less people will sign up to Spotify B) Facebook will gain more users

So, what's in it for Spotify?

In my opinion, this was a very bad move. Spotify is now relying on Facebook. God forbid Facebook ends up like Myspace and no one cares about them in 4 years, then I guess Spotify will just go down with the ship?

<comment><USER58> Maybe but they'll get promotion within facebook. Lots of users and they can always split if FB goes under.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I suppose that because Spotify lives on Facebook now (regularly in my scroll), this move won't be unappealing to most people. I have the impression that HN is much more anti-FB than the population in general. Most of the people Spotify appeals to, such as the college student demographic, all have Facebook and don't really care about their information or privacy, so they won't mind using it to get free music.

What I'm curious about is if this was their game plan from the beginning. I wouldn't say it's an act of desperation at all, I bet they celebrated when the FB deal was finalized. They're pushing it pretty hard. I signed up for Spotify weeks before this, but as soon as f8 hit my local Spotify app bothered me about checking what my friends are listening to on Facebook even after I authorized the connection.

<comment><USER60> College student here, no facebook and won't be getting one either. Granted, since I'm posting on HN there is a bit of selection bias, but my good friend who is a typical liberal arts major doesn't have one either because he heard about "some privacy issues" (not from me).

This is anecdotal, but I wanted to point out that facebook isn't as widespread as people think.

<comment><USER59> How does a two-person case study dispute that Facebook is widespread? Virtually everyone I know has one, but perhaps if I thought hard enough I could also come up with a person or two who don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Interesting. Maybe Facebook is integrating a Mafia based business strategy: Either you become an exclusive Facebook service or we just rip off your idea and offer it as our own. Wasn't there some guy recently on HN who claimed that FB screwed him over with their music service?

</comment><comment><USER62> I've had a spotify free account for some time. Today, the new automatic update presented me with the new default settings for my account. The default is to share publicly starred items and new lists, ie opt-out rather than opt-in.

</comment><comment><USER63> It's worth mentioning that Sean Parker is involved with both Facebook and Spotify.

</comment><comment><USER64> I noticed this a day or two ago when I tried to sign up at the recommendation of a coworker. I decided against it when I realized you had to use your Facebook account to login. I'm going to check out rdio instead.

</comment><comment><USER65> What is the real reason these companies are doing this? It's obviously not the reasons they claim. There must be some sort of incentive program where Facebook is giving them kickbacks, as well as a gag order that prevents them from stating the agreement they have. It's very close to the old practice of companies that "sponsor" popular software by paying the developers to include their third party adware toolbar installers in the package, often embedding themselves deep within the user's system on a rootkit level, just as Facebook invisibly tracks everything you do.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's the same with turntable.fm... Talk about an unfortunate trend. I think it's great that facebook can help facilitate the authentication process, but it should definitely be a choice made by the user.

</comment><comment><USER67> Seems like Facebook might've asked for this as part of the integration deal. Otherwise I see no obvious reason for Spotify to limit their customer base. Unless the economics of delivering music to a non-facebook user is much less attractive and have much lower conversion to paying user? I find music discovery on Spotify to be poor compared to Pandora, and without my FB connections sharing playlists, I have no incentive to pay for Spotify.

</comment><comment><USER68> Tangentially related, but is anybody else really sick of everybody's Spotifys updating their Facebook pages with every track they're currently listening to?

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell I contacted firstname.lastname@example.com and asked them to delete my account. They replied:

"If you wish to close your Spotify account, log into your Spotify account profile (<https://www.spotify.com/account/profile/>), and add ".del" to your email address. Your account will be closed within 48 hours."

</comment><comment><USER69> I live in a country where most of the big music streaming services are not available, only last.fm. With this move, may Spotify open their service to other countries? Yeah, I know music labels are strong but side by side with Facebook they have some power. And I guess, it's hard to ignore 700+ million users.

</comment><comment><USER70> I've just cancelled my premium subscription and mentioned 'too much forced facebook integration' as the reason

</comment><comment><USER71> For every 1 person that doesn't sign up for Spotify because they need Facebook, there will be 2 people that sign up because they don't need to create yet another account.

This obviously stinks if you think Facebook is some super evil company, but if you're a regular person it probably doesn't matter.

<comment> guard-of-terra That does not explains why they had to make Facebook mandatory.

Optional Facebook auth would save every one person and still gain those two people.

<comment><USER71> True.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> This is a very poor move, I have linked my two accounts but forcing people to do it is just shocking.

</comment><comment><USER73> At the rate things are going, some day soon the government is going to ask the same.

</comment><comment><USER74> Is there anything else to say apart from.

Ewwww..

<comment><USER27> There is actually, and here on HN it's encouraged behavior to expand upon your opinions and debate the subject in detail.

Why is it "ewww" for you? What would be a better solution? What are the pros and cons of this decision for Spotify, for FB and for the user?

<comment><USER75> I'll take a guess at the pros and cons for spotify:

Pro: some users like the integration and the social features that it gives them. This doesn't explain why it's now mandatory, or why it's become mandatory right now.

Pro: Has Spotify done some kind of deal with Facebook, and Facebook insisted on this? I put "pro" since I assume that Spotify also got something out of the hypothetical deal.

Con: There are some users (like myself) who think that facebook knows enough about me already, and really do not want to integrate them into anything. I like the face that the web is not an extension of the facebook machine.

As an existing Spotify user this policy does not apply to me (yet?) but it's repellent. As a _paying_ Spotify user I don't feel that I would be obliged to put up with that. I don't complain about FB too much since hey, I didn't pay anything for it and no-body actually forced me to use it. I know, "if you're not the customer, you're the product" - but with Spotify, I bloody well am the paying customer, they've got my money, they don't need to sell me to Facebook. They can take their Facebook integration and GTFO.

 _Edit_ : a friend has suggested that Spotify are angling to be bought by Facebook, and this will help them integrate for that.

It's worth noting that Spotify used to have _optional_ facebook integration, i.e. "the standard Facebook - or - Default sign up page", and they have taken the effort to remove this for new signups. There must be some reason for actively removing this choice, and I don't think that "mass-market users are confused by having 2 different choices" is it.

<comment><USER76> Presumed pro: Spotify said at f8 that users who engaged socially with Spotify through their existing facebook functionality bother listened to more music and were much (I think they said 2x) more likely to pay for a premium membership.

If a Facebook account is mandatory (at the moment it isn't), they might expect a greater number of users to link their accounts. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that the number of people who additionally link their accounts will exceed the number of subscriptions lost from people who refuse to have a Facebook accounts. If a greater number of people linking accounts => increased Premium registrations, then this could very easily be a purely business decision.

<comment><USER74> A better business decision would be to use the standard Facebook - or - Default sign up page. This will undoubtedly increase social usage by the Facebook faithful without alienating other users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Spotify's selection is awful and they lump tons of unrelated artists together. I've been using MOG for a month and have been 99% satisfied (their new beta doesn't work with my firewall at work for some reason).

</comment><comment><USER78> I know it's not completely analogous, but AOL comes to mind. Facebook seems to be this subset of the internet like AOL was. You have to remind people that something bigger exists beyond the walls.

</comment><comment><USER79> Spotify can do whatever it wants. It may seem a bit extreme to require a facebook account to use the service, but honestly - competing with a behemoth like Apple and iTunes, with it's inevitable rollout of a similar service at some point that - it's not an easy thing to do. For Spotify to succeed against its competitors, it's going to have to take drastic measures, and this is pretty drastic. I've actually wanted more of my friends on facebook to get on the service so we could share music, but many don't even know what Spotify is. In fact, on the flipside, there was an article on one of the Apple/Mac blogs suggesting that Apple desperately needs a social network. Music is meant to be shared.

</comment><comment><USER80> My prediction is that Facebook will be acquiring Spotify within 6 months. Makes sense for both parties, and last I checked, Sean Parker is a shareholder in both.

</comment><comment><USER81> meebo.com just nagged me to link my account for the first time. It showed me a new interface in hoping it would lurk me in. It has to be a coordinated effort.

</comment><comment><USER82> Is Reed Hastings on their board? Bad business decision!

</comment><comment><USER83> my bad, still forces facebook log in, even enable you to sign up for facebook on spotify's website, dumb move, another player on the Blue F wall

</comment><comment><USER30> Is Spotify going to start giving a discount on subscriptions for all this marketing/advertising information they're pushing to Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER84> It isn't the siren call of "social," it is the dinner bell of 500 million daily users that Spotify is answering.

</comment><comment><USER85> While it is annoying, this will exponentially grow the spotify user base. I am a single island of music consumption right now on spotify. IF I were to link my facebook account(which I never use) to it, my feed would be seen by all of my friends encouraging new signups for spotify.

Music is extremely social. Facebook is social. Annoying, yes. Smart, definitely.

</comment><comment> eric-hu This makes me wonder if there was some backroom deal to give Facebook an edge over Google+.

</comment><comment><USER86> Sean Parker must have slipped some Rohypnol in their drinks.

</comment><comment><USER87> This is the way everything is going, like it or not. The benefit to the publisher is too great. This seems to be one of those things that developers can't stand but normal people either don't care or actually prefer.

<comment><USER76> The tradeoff between "Lost registrations" and "Extra engagement through everyone having a linked Facebook account" must be an interesting one.

<comment><USER87> Yeah, especially keeping in mind that extra engagement means more registrations as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Why doesn't Facebook just buy Spotify...

<comment><USER33> Nobody in their right mind wants to build a business that is 100% beholden to record labels. Facebook is focusing on building a platform first, and anything else would be a [time|money] distraction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> i hope that existing users will not be forced to link their Facebook accounts to continue using Spotify

</comment><comment><USER90> First iHeartRadio. Now this.

</comment><comment><USER91> And so it begins...

</comment><comment><USER92> Lame.

</comment><comment><USER93> Good thing I have no desire to use either one.

</comment><comment><USER94> I got a question. Does Facebook connect give Spotify access to my email address that is linked to my Facebook account? Does it give them access to my first and last name as well? If so, I could understand their stance... it will give their service a higher viral coefficient.. at the expense of a few users..

</comment><comment><USER95> Quote from a spotify employee on the liked page:

> _Hey Guys thanks for your question, Unfortunately you will need a Facebook > account to access Spotify from now on, unless you already have an account > set up. This does not stop you creating the Facebook account adding nothing > to it and making it totally private as the Facebook account does not have to > be actively used._

I don't know if I find this hilarious, ironic or stupid. He turns towards [potential] costumers and says 'unfortunately' for something that was sole spotify decision. Then suggesting creating bogus/zombie facebook accounts it's just plain pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER96> 1) facebook OWNS spotify. their testimonial, "spotify rocks" - <USER2> zuckerberg, is proof that they bow to mz and are catering to his audience (most of the world, thx Goldman Sachs).

2) it's very smart for facebook to own music and therefore, emotion (Twitter hedge fund? FORGET THAT, I'm going to start a SPOTIFY hedge fund.)

3) the number one reason i use spotify is social: i like being able to listen to a friend's playlist (i have chosen him as an arbiter of cool music...)

4) i still use youtube to search out esoteric sounds that aren't available on itunes/amazon/spotify

</comment><comment><USER97> I just signed up days ago and they only required email. I guess I got lucky.

</comment><comment><USER98> truth is: the majority of end user don't care if they can only sign up with facebook. it's even easier for them as they have less choice to make. This is only a problem for highly privacy and technology aware folks, like tech bloggers or developers. Apparently, they are not the target audience.

</comment><comment><USER99> An OpenID solution finally succeeds and people are still upset.

<comment><USER8> OpenID would allow you to sign in via any open-id provider. This is not OpenID.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Good thing I have absolutely no idea what spotify is.

</comment><comment><USER101> If you aren't paying for the product or service, you are the product or service.

<comment><USER102> Until yesterday, many of us were paying €10 each month for the privelege of being the customer instead of being the product or service. With this move they make it clear that they want us to be the product or service anyway.

<comment><USER101> Right.. sorry, I was referring to facebook. I guess I wasn't clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> <http://www.spotify.com/us/get-spotify/open/>

This link is on spotify's help page and enables the open sign up without facebook, the nag screens post there-of, I do not know, I don't use paid or will-attempt-to-make-me-pay services, and to boot, Grooveshark is still free without an account

<comment><USER90> No, it doesn't.</comment></comment>


Netflix's Bow to Saudi Censors Comes at a Cost to Free Speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/business/media/netflix-saudi-arabia-censorship-hasan-minhaj.html <comment><USER2> Articles like this make me angry. Suddenly its a big deal because Saudi Arabia was thrust into the news for the Khashoggi murder. It has always been a cultural norm for certain kinds of censorship to occur regularly and the subjects of censorship differ by nation.

I am an American who is currently living in Kuwait and spent about 3.5 years between Kuwait and Afghanistan.

In Kuwait you do not talk negatively about religion. This actually against the law and is largely how Kuwait avoids religious strife that infects other regions. In many nations here you don't talk negatively in public about the current national politics, though the acceptable tone differs by nation. In nearly all the nations here sex does not belong in any form of media. All matters of sex are private and to be kept within the household. Cursing in public is also generally bad. The allowed dress of people in media differs by nation as well.

In many areas they play American movies in public theaters, but will edit out parts that violate the local cultural norms. Remember that Sex In The City 2 was filmed in UAE, but I don't believe it was available in the cinema there.

None of this is new. The cultural challenge that nations face here is how to become modern without losing their unique identify and cultural legacies. The different countries are evolving on this matter at different speeds and prefer to accommodate for various different demands local.

<comment><USER3> >Suddenly its a big deal because Saudi Arabia was thrust into the news for the Khashoggi murder.

Which was only in the news because he was a journalist. Journalists care when other journalists get wronged. If it was you or I that got sawed up it might have been a footnote on some columnist's hobby blog.

<comment><USER4> Just look at the situation in Yemen. Nobody cared enough to talk about even though what it looks like is one of the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. 1 journalist was tortured and murdered, and suddenly everyone was up in arms about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. You cannot have both. Just as a private citizen cannot just waltz into one of these countries and do as they please "because I can do this at home" why should we expect a private company to do as such?

Simply put, if our government will not why do we feel we should hold private companies to a higher standard?

<comment><USER6> why can't we have both? why can't we use our companies to spread proper values? isn't this the same backlash of google going into china? would netflix also help MBS chop up journalists or oppress women?

<comment><USER7> Because there are no "proper values", there are "your values".

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the- baby-e...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating- aliens-1-8)

<comment><USER8> Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean there aren't rights that we must deem fundamental and defend globally.

This knee jerk relativism is getting old. Just because morality exists outside of systems of formal logic, doesnt make it any less important. It is still up for debate.

<comment><USER7> Which right is more fundamental? My right of deciding my own morality, or your right of enforcing your global values?

<comment><USER9> Nobody is forcing Saudis to watch a Netflix show they find morally repugnant -- the Saudi government prevented its citizens from seeing something politically sensitive.

I can't believe posters on HN are defending this.

<comment><USER7> Who's defending this? I, specifically, didn't talk about this specific instance at all.

<comment><USER8> Pick a position.

<comment><USER7> Right, because there must be enforceable universal moralities for Netflix to decide that they don't want to remove an episode.

<comment><USER8> My issue with your participation in this discussion is that you think you are moving the discussion forward when you post a less-wrong link to support your statement about moral relativism.

And you maintain the same sense of correctness even as it is explained to you that your argument is regressive and unhelpful.

<comment><USER7> I posted exactly two comments on this, one saying that there are no "proper values", and one asking what they would look like if there were.

Commenters mistaking this for me condoning what Netflix did or making some broader assumption are just that, mistaken.

You did answer my question with an example, but I chose not to reply because I thought that if two sentences can be misconstrued so badly, more sentences wouldn't make anything better, but, since you replied, I will ask you:

> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

If a woman decides that she wants to cover her face with a burqa and we legislate a burqa ban, are we following her right to freedom or are we oppressing her? If a society votes that they don't want to see nudity on TV, is it right for another society to not adhere to that? Is it moral for Spotify to censor songs that the US finds offensive, even though Sweden disagrees?

<comment><USER10> If me and a friend vote to kill you, are we right to do that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought the whole rationale of the de-platforming movement was that free speech doesn't apply to private companies and institutions, they are free to host whatever content they want and have whatever political bias they want. If that is the case why shouldn't it apply to Netflix too?

<comment><USER12> How does it not apply to Netflix? Just because they have the right to censor stuff, doesn't mean that you have to agree with any particular instance of their censorship, does it?

<comment><USER11> I am not defending Netflix. I think Silicon Valley companies pushing a political agenda using their platforms is reprehensible, particularly given the high level of concentration. However I merely point the contradiction between the New York Times cheering for the de-platforming movement and then complaining about Netflix in name of Free Speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Netflix is GDPR compliant although that almost definitely violates the first amendment. To operate in foreign countries you have to abide by their rules.

I'm much more concerned by Twitter, Facebook, Patreon, et al censoring Americans.

<comment><USER14> > Netflix is GDPR compliant although that almost definitely violates the first > amendment

Can you explain what you mean by this point? AFAIK the First Amendment is a US thing and GDPR is something Europeans wanted.

<comment><USER15> It doesn't, any more than Facebook or Twitter can, as non-government actors, censor Americans. There are some lobbying groups which push the argument that any sort of accountability is a free speech violation but that's rhetorical ammunition not to be confused with a sound legal argument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Only if the NYTimes cared as much about the "cost to free speech" in the US. The NYTimes, along with other large media companies, have been the biggest advocates of tech censorship of americans. They forced google, facebook, twitter, etc to censor ordinary americans. Makes it hard for me to take them seriously when it comes to censorship.

And I fully understand the argument of government vs private company. But the outcome is still the same - censorship. Whether content is censored at the behest of the saudis or the nytimes is meaningless to me. It's the spirit of free speech rather than the law.

Saudi Arabia has been censoring for decades. And the NYTimes has been more or less fine with that. Why the sudden change? Because the saudis are supporting Trump and vice versa? In 2008, when obama won, the nytimes and much of the media was hailing social media as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Since 2016, a complete shift. I wonder why?

The biggest disappoint for me is the realization that the NYTimes, just like foxnews and the rest of the major news companies, are politically driven rather than driven by morality or truth. If the saudis had been relentlessly mocking Trump rather than supporting him, I suspect the NYTimes article would be defending the saudis - along the lines of "when in rome..." or more likely, they wouldn't have bother writing anything. Supporting the regime and censorship by omission.

Also, I've noticed a significant drop in zuckerburg or facebook hitpieces by the media ever since his new year's message where he promised to get in line and censor like other major tech companies. I guess that means less anti- facebook spam, but more censorship online.

</comment><comment><USER17> Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy. That's not news. Have we decided American companies can only trade with democracies? That would be news.

</comment><comment><USER18> Huh. I thought because Netflix is a private company what they do isnt censorship. So Google, Facebook, Twitter can moderate content as they see fit, be it to please a market or local sensibilities. I'm happy to see thr NYT see content moderation as a curb on speech though.

As others said, if you're okay with abiding by GDPR, then you're okay with abiding by laws and regulations of other locales like China, Russia and Saudi.

<comment><USER19> > I thought because Netflix is a private company what they do isnt censorship.

I mean, if they do it at the behest of the government, it very definitely is?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well, it against the (Saudi) law, so Netflix can't show it in Saudi Arabia. I hope they draw a line in the sand when it comes to other countries, i.e., remove the episode worldwide, but I think for individual countries the battle is lost.

Even Germany has laws curtailing what we, in USA call "Free speech" (for obvious reasons they are sensitive about Nazi propaganda.) In USA you can say virtually all things, but you'll lose your job or sponsors, er...your paycheck. So censorship is done by private entities.

<comment><USER21> As a German I want to write exactly this. By all means we are a country with good laws and everything. But we have restrictions on free speech. For very good reasons. We are proud of this and see it as something positive (when you ignore the 1% who are actually restricted).

Netflix and other global companies have these kind of challenges. They are pretty used to it (imagine food or drug regulations). There is just a group of media/digital companies who grew their business niche too fast and are now surprised that local laws and regulations show up. The GDPR, free speech limitations, different social systems, SJW incompatibilities, etc are just samples of all of this.

And I want to highlight, that I do neither like consequences like this. I like my movies uncut, healthy discussion (eg about the monarchy) and equal right for minorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Didn't see the problem. If Free Speech isn't respected in SA, Netflix can't fix it.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't blame them at all. If anything the censor has made it all the more popular, and those who are curious will seek it out.

It's either censor certain episodes, or there's no Netflix at all.

</comment><comment><USER24> It is real easy. When they want to limit your product with censorship and other evil things, do not do business there. Perhaps they will come around when their people starts screaming for these kind of services.

If all companies just adhere to their rules, well the population will probably never require the change that they should because it will be good enough so the dangerous path of complaining is not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER25> Free speech is a Western value.

Tying to impose it on the rest of the world is yet another colonization.

True diversity is allowing other cultures to live by different values.

<comment><USER17> The diversity of allowing theocracies isn't one I am particularly interested in supporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't understand this article. If Saudi Arabia does not have free speech how is Netflix suppose to up hold it there? Also Free Speech is a right/protection from the government it doesn't have anything to do with private companies like Netflix. Finally the author acts like free speech is universal, "As America's new media overlords grow at a stunning rate, expanding into every nook and cranny of the globe where governments will let them in, are they compelled to defend universal values like free speech that their home country was founded on?" The majority of countries don't have free speech like the United States does, so I wouldn't call it a universal value.

<comment><USER27> Freedom of speech is a concept, in USA there is a specific protection to prevent government from inhibiting free speech in certain ways. That doesn't mean that non-government persons are unable to inhibit free speech.

It's curious that USA's media corporations' [gamut of] values do get promoted through their productions. In more open societies they're just presented as is.

<comment><USER26> That's not how it works in the United States. As a non government entity Netflix is perfectly within their right to censor or restrict their customers any way they see fit, as long as they don't discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Also It seems people in Saudi Arabia have no right to freedom of speech unlike in the United States.

<comment><USER27> Could you say that again, I can't see how it disagrees with anything I said.

Also, AIUI Netflix can discriminate so long as it's consistent with the concept of "positive discrimination". So they can say "we're not having your show because you're a white male", or "we want you to include a homosexual lead character", or similar.

<comment><USER26> > So they can say "we're not having your show because you're a white male", or > "we want you to include a homosexual lead character", or similar.

Netflix can't discriminate against anyone for their race, including white males.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


MediaGoblin and FSF to decentralize media publishing on the web - <AUTHOR> http://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html

<comment><AUTHOR> They have been working on it for a while, apparently, you can try it right away <http://docs.mediagoblin.org/siteadmin/deploying.html>

<comment><USER2> There are also public instances[1] such as gobblin.se[2] which i own and administrate (beware of bugs, gobblin.se is tracking git master which means it is very bleeding edge).

[1]: <http://wiki.mediagoblin.org/Live_instances>

[2]: <http://gobblin.se></comment></comment>


Transforming my kite into an iPhone4 case - <AUTHOR> http://www.vinzenzweber.com/2011/08/building-an-iphone-bag-out-of-an-old-kite/

<comment><USER2> nice!</comment>


Anti-vax parents sue to keep unvaccinated kids in school during outbreak - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/anti-vax-parents-sue-to-keep-unvaccinated-kids-in-school-during-outbreak/ <comment><USER2> moderating anti-science[1] content on a public access system is becoming more of a problem for me each day. it is less than encouraging to see these people lawyering! how i struggle to understand the point of view of someone who seeks to spread unsourced[2] material.

[1] as "pro-disease" [2] as "content presenting itself as layperson news on peer-reviewed science, when not only is there no peer, there's no scientist"

<comment><AUTHOR> 'How about counter-suing them for attempted murder.' \-- says one of the top comments on Ars. 400+ of them at the moment, by the way.

Amazing that it has come to this.</comment></comment>


The Evolving Definition of "App" - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielodio.com/2010/11/09/the-evolving-definition-of-app/

<comment><USER2> Resurgence of apps makes a lot of sense, as the personal machines (computers, mobile phones, pods and pads) become more powerful and the bandwidth increases and becomes ubiquitous.

Browser-based remote apps make sense in a slow-network environment, such as the Internet of dialups; but today everyone has a potential server in their hands.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm back in the day, an "app" was native software on Mac OS X, and these days I still call "Safari.app" an app. It does have a ".app" extension, after all. I think this is the definition that was the predecessor to "native software that typically runs on a smartphone, and most commonly the iPhone."</comment>


Show HN: Hacking Kindness – how to make people behave better on the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.kindify.net/? <comment><USER2> Some interesting stuff in here, but the way you present it makes it difficult to access. If I may, I would advise you to:

\- make the cards browsable on your homepage instead of presenting them as a pdf

\- provide some more information about a technique or some examples when a specific card is selected (all the more so since some cards are ambiguous)

\- organise your cards in various groups, so as to make them easier to internalise by readers

\- this is more subjective, but these techniques are applicable to more fields than online nudging (I read them in the context of managing a team), so I would remove references that narrow their scope down unnecessarily

Where did you find the techniques? Please continue working on it, I would appreciate being able to regularly come back to this resource

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh wow, thanks for all this feedback. Let me comment point by point:

\- Good idea. The reason I published it just as a PDF is that I'm primarily making it for print. I figured I'd share the PDF before going to print to get a bit of feedback and a reality check. Hence I never considered a more screen native form. But I am now, because I'm getting a fair bit of similar feedback.

\- Makes sense. My plan was to do this if I get to a stage where I make this a book.

\- Noted!

\- Interesting to hear that! I've heard this a lot now, and indeed it seems like online nudging isn't the main scenario. That is really cool, tbh...

About the techniques: I'm an engineer with a psychology background, and have spent the last decade doing conversion rate optimization at a very large scale (I've had teams of up to 60 people). I started this project thinking what I would do if I tried to make people behave better, rather than book hotels/flights/whatever, then started reading up on research in psychology.

Most of the cards are derived from research where there exists public systematic reviews of several experiments (usually dozens+) on the same concept, to avoid that I repeat findings from experiments that were just flukes/doesn't replicate. Also, for each card, you can take the name of the effect in the upper sub-header and search for it in Google Scholar and you'll find a lot more information. Usually there will also be a wikipedia page.

Thanks again for the interest! Very motivating for continuing work on this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would you consider putting a preview of a card on the homepage? I'm hesitant to click the download button on my mobile without much context.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've gotten this feedback a few times, so I'll see what I can do. If it helps, the PDF is only 165kb!</comment></comment>


"Swat" Flies with Table Salt - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/161050

<comment><USER2> i have a passion for killing flies that my family thinks is borderline psycho and this does not help to subside that mental instability...</comment>


'Smart' Dildo Company Sued for Tracking Users' Habits - <AUTHOR> http://www.vocativ.com/358530/smart-dildo-company-sued-for-tracking-users-habits/ <comment><USER2> I have absolutely no idea how to react to this, but if it's in the terms of use then the company should be protected well enough, correct?

I mean sure, privacy of users has been threatened, but if they had been previously warned it is their fault.

Just to be clear - I'm not on either side.</comment>


The Weird World of Bi-Directional Programming (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/papers/lenses-etapsslides.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm interested to how this applies to Reactive application-UI programming (e.g. React+Flux).

React has a powerful unidirectional data->UI flow model, but I haven't seen an expressive language for the other awy (putback functions), besides UPDATE statements in various db query language, but I figure there's gotta be more symmetry between the languages expressing data->UI and UI->data.

Is there a video of this talk?

<comment><USER3> Take a look at Boomerang programming language: [https://alliance.seas.upenn.edu/~harmony/](https://alliance.seas.upenn.edu/~harmony/) and its documentation, they have a bit of explanation of lenses there. Also, on the frontend/in JS we also have some implementations of lenses, most notably in Bilby.js: [http://bilby.brianmckenna.org/#lenses](http://bilby.brianmckenna.org/#lenses)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like it's closely related to homomorphic encryption.

</comment><comment><USER5> Any ideas on what was used to author the presentation ? Powerpoint ?

<comment><USER6> It looks like it was made with Beamer, a package for LaTeX for making presentations: [https://www.sharelatex.com/learn/Beamer](https://www.sharelatex.com/learn/Beamer). It's pretty popular in mathematics, physics, and computer sciene theory.

<comment><USER5> Impressed by the animation in the figures.</comment></comment></comment>


BioShock 2 Secrets of a level designer - <AUTHOR> http://fullbright.blogspot.com/2010/02/bioshock-2-seeeeeeecrets.html

<comment><USER2> The author, Steve Gaynor, is one of my favourite video game bloggers, one who frequently argues with perfect clarity views about gaming that I nebulously felt internally but could never articulate. However, this particular post isn't a particularly interesting fit for the HN audience.

But while we're here, I'll link to a much more interesting post of his from last year, in which he gives some insight into what makes for interesting and engaging level design:

[http://fullbright.blogspot.com/2009/02/basics-of- effective-f...](http://fullbright.blogspot.com/2009/02/basics-of-effective- fps-encounter.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Curio and easter eggs from specific levels in the game, not advice about how to design good levels. Pity.

<comment><USER4> There are very few level design resources out there in general.

As a side note, the designer responsible for Fort Frolic in Bioshock 1 and The Cradle in Thief 3 (if you haven't played these games these are highly acclaimed, innovative levels) took the role of Creative Director in Bioshock 2.

<comment><USER5> Good level design is a closely guarded secret, but you can break-down and study all the great levels yourself. However, some really interesting stuff can be found on the World Creation chapter of the World of Warcraft: Behind the Scenes DVD. Chris Metzen starts by talking about how important it was for them to get the trees to feel right before they could really do anything else. It is pretty fascinating.

A note somewhat related to level design that I am always reminded of is OldManMurray's Time to Crate review system for games: <http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/39.html>

<comment><USER4> Actually, that OMM link reminds me of the developer commentary in Valve's games (the people behind OMM write for Valve), such as Portal. Quite often they explain the thought processes behind areas of the map. I think the free Lost Coast tech demo explains a lot about the fundamentals.

Looking through my collection of links, I've found this one which is pretty good at describing how to pace a level. [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4024/examining_game_pa...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4024/examining_game_pace_how_.php)

<comment><USER5> Good point. The dev commentary for Half-Life 2 and Portal is really awesome, and very useful for level designers. For Half-Life 2 they talk a bunch about setting up dramatic scenes and in Portal they cover a lot of the ways they had to stop people from cheating. The Portal one is great for really learning how to do a great interactive tutorial. I remember a specific part where they talk about why they had to place a wall in a certain spot so that people would learn to use the portal gun in a specific way.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The hero culture - <AUTHOR> http://elviovicosa.com/blog/2015/10/16/no-heroes-culture.html <comment><USER2> This article makes some valid points but the devil is usually in the details. Based on the definition of a 'hero' in this article, it seems to be a non- management level employee.

I would argue the problem is not the 'hero' but the management and the environment surrounding said 'hero'.</comment>