Spotify Will Stop Running Political Ads In 2020

[Guest]

Spotify will stop running political ads in 2020

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/media/spotify-political-ads/index.html (sorry for CNN, its that or Radio New Zealand, which no one here has heard of)

 

Quote

The company announced Friday it will no longer accept political ads in its ad-supported tier for music streaming and in its original and exclusive podcasts. While Spotify makes the majority of its revenue from its 113 million paying subscribers, about 141 million users listen for free, as of its third-quarter of 2019 earnings. 

 

The company is making the change since it does not have the ability to "responsibly validate" political ads, a Spotify spokesperson told CNN Business.

Thats fair, if you cant curate the ad population, Spotify cant affiliate with a political party - its bad business. Although its also surprising who uses free Spotify still (sorry guys).

 

Quote

"At this point in time, we do not yet have the necessary level of robustness in our processes, systems and tools to responsibly validate and review this content. We will reassess this decision as we continue to evolve our capabilities," a Spotify spokesperson said. 

 

The policy only affects the United States since that's the only market where it sells political ads. It will be implemented sometime early next year. It does not include ads embedded within third-party content, such as podcasts not owned by Spotify.

I haven't heard ads on Spotify since 2014 (wierd flex), so I cant really comment about the ads. Great move though my Spotify, politics has little place in music IMO (not in the stuff I listen to - not sure who Nicki Minaj votes for). IDK if they are trying to appeal to the younger generation on Spotify, but now its a more neutral platform. Great work. 

Quote

In October, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced his company would no longer accept political ads. TikTok also revealed that month it does not allow political ads. LinkedIn, Pinterest and Twitch have banned political ads. Facebook, Google, Snapchat and Reddit each accept political ads.

Well we know which ones not to go on. Political ads often simply come off cringe, I just try to hide them. Political Ads on Google is quite understandable as they have a large distribution - its probably just the way to go. 

 

So what do you think, should political ads be allowed on social media? Should ads in general be regulated more on more intimate social media, such as Spotify (we listen to music a lot more than be update our status I feel). 

[The1Dickens]

2 minutes ago, floofer said:

So what do you think, should political ads be allowed on social media?

I don't think political advertisement should be a thing at all. That our political system has grown to "sell you a person" is absurd. There should be simple documentation for each politician that talks about their goals for running, what they plan to achieve in the next 4 years, what they have achieved in the previous 4 years, and it should all fit within 3 to 4 pages, 5 at the most.

[ravenshrike]

Watching these lefty tech companies desperately try to avoid running ads for Trump is utterly hilarious.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Watching these lefty tech companies desperately try to avoid running ads for Trump is utterly hilarious.

There is no agenda. Extract from article:

Quote

Ad Age, which first reported the news, said Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and the Republican National Committee have both advertised on Spotify.

 

[RejZoR]

Oh boy, maybe in year 2020 living in Central Europe, I'll be able to even use Spotify... At all. What a joke, like we're some frigging 3rd world country or something...

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

I don't think political advertisement should be a thing at all. That our political system has grown to "sell you a person" is absurd. There should be simple documentation for each politician that talks about their goals for running, what they plan to achieve in the next 4 years, what they have achieved in the previous 4 years, and it should all fit within 3 to 4 pages, 5 at the most.

 

I agree wholeheartedly,   In today's 24 hour news cycle and with social media being loaded with absolute BS, the last thing we need is more politically funded BS lying to us through media we use for entertainment.     If they can't stop with the ads outright then there should at least be laws that prevent political ads from talking about other parties, let them only talk about themselves rather than lie about their opponents.

 

I personally love politics (it's been a hobby of mine for 20 years), but in recent years the level to which modern communications has degraded the discourse is frankly pathetic and any self respecting human should be ashamed to be part of it let alone endorse it.

 

I can't wait for political ads to be something people see as a weakness in a party rather than something that promotes that party.  Only then will they stop lying to us.

[williamcll]

Political advertising in a whole should be rebuilt to be honest, there is so many layers of half truths that I just stopped listening and got the fun apk version.

[RejZoR]

Political ads should be banned entirely. You can't condense your campaign into an ad and all the promises are always a lie. People who are invested in politics or know who they want to vote will know with or without ads. All the millions spent just doing silly advertising could be spent better imo for actual problems.

[RonnieOP]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I agree wholeheartedly,   In today's 24 hour news cycle and with social media being loaded with absolute BS, the last thing we need is more politically funded BS lying to us through media we use for entertainment.     If they can't stop with the ads outright then there should at least be laws that prevent political ads from talking about other parties, let them only talk about themselves rather than lie about their opponents.

 

I personally love politics (it's been a hobby of mine for 20 years), but in recent years the level to which modern communications has degraded the discourse is frankly pathetic and any self respecting human should be ashamed to be part of it let alone endorse it.

 

I can't wait for political ads to be something people see as a weakness in a party rather than something that promotes that party.  Only then will they stop lying to us.

I disagree. 

 

If someone is dumb enough to believe an ad without doing proper research and thats why they vote for a certain person thats on them.

 

I hate that the world is starting to dumb down everything to cater to the dumb and lazy.

 

Idc what political side you are on or who you support. Your are responsible for what you choose to believe. And i have that same logic outside of politics as well.

 

If your dumb enough to believe an ad on pornhub that pills will make your dick the size of a horse and you spend your money on it thats on you.

 

(Obv when i say you i dont mean you specifically).

[RonnieOP]

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Political ads should be banned entirely. You can't condense your campaign into an ad and all the promises are always a lie. People who are invested in politics or know who they want to vote will know with or without ads. All the millions spent just doing silly advertising could be spent better imo for actual problems.

Well political ads are paid for by the candidates and their backers. So banning that doesnt mean that money would go to some better cause. 

 

Ive donated to a few candidates over the years. If they banned that then i would probably spend that money on whiskey and lawn darts lol

 

Course i dont donate millions or anything.

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Well political ads are paid for by the candidates and their backers. So banning that doesnt mean that money would go to some better cause. 

 

Ive donated to a few candidates over the years. If they banned that then i would probably spend that money on whiskey and lawn darts lol

 

Course i dont donate millions or anything.

Banning them would at the very least mean that political parties with loads of cash wouldn't automatically be able to trample newer, non-establishment candidates. 

 

It's not so much about freeing up campaign funds for other purposes as it is able removing the need for the campaign funds altogether. 

[RonnieOP]

14 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Banning them would at the very least mean that political parties with loads of cash wouldn't automatically be able to trample newer, non-establishment candidates. 

 

It's not so much about freeing up campaign funds for other purposes as it is able removing the need for the campaign funds altogether. 

Currently that would be impossible though.

 

Candidates need to able to visit many areas and get their message out on multiple platforms (cable tv, youtube, radio, etc). That costs money.

 

Removing money all together would hurt bew candidates as well as i doubt they can afford to travel and what not out of their own pocket.

 

Now the argument could be made the things like youtube can be done for cheap. But youd be risking the older generation votes as they may not care for youtube. And even then what happens when youtube doesnt allow it?

 

Dont get me wrong. Im not saying politicians dont lie to us. They do. All of them.

 

But if someone chooses to believe that lie thats on them. You have to be 18 to vote so we arent talking about small children here  Adults should be held responsible for the lies they dont fact check.

 

And im not trying to act all high and mighty either. Ive been fooled plenty of times in my life. But thats my fault. 

[Unixsystem]

@RonnieOP My question would be: why do candidates need to advertise to literally everyone?

 

Dont get me wrong, everyone should have access to information about candidates. Websites, public forums and townhall meetings, YouTube videos etc should be readily available so you can see who your options are, what they've done and what they plan to do. But how do political ads help with that? At best you're getting a 30-60 second snippet of overly passionate language one or two hot button issues with no actual details or elaboration, and at worst it's just dedicated to attacking a rival with half truths for that time. It really doesn't serve any more purpose than sticking one of those plastic signs in your front yard in terms of actually informing the average person on what these politicians actually believe (or what they claim to believe, at least). 

 

I don't know what the actual solution is to avoid excess bias, but some sort of centralized location that can link to all candidates personal websites with more information is really all that people would need if they are interested and involved in their local political scene. And if they aren't involved, then why does it matter? While I'm absolutely in favor of everyone having easy access to voting, I don't see any inherent reason that absolutely everyone in the country needs to follow every election like a hawk and feel compelled to vote. 

 

Basically, information on candidates needs to be easy to locate and access, but it doesn't need to be shoved down everyone's throat. 

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

@RonnieOP My question would be: why do candidates need to advertise to literally everyone?

 

Dont get me wrong, everyone should have access to information about candidates. Websites, public forums and townhall meetings, YouTube videos etc should be readily available so you can see who your options are, what they've done and what they plan to do. But how do political ads help with that? At best you're getting a 30-60 second snippet of overly passionate language one or two hot button issues with no actual details or elaboration, and at worst it's just dedicated to attacking a rival with half truths for that time. It really doesn't serve any more purpose than sticking one of those plastic signs in your front yard in terms of actually informing the average person on what these politicians actually believe (or what they claim to believe, at least). 

 

I don't know what the actual solution is to avoid excess bias, but some sort of centralized location that can link to all candidates personal websites with more information is really all that people would need if they are interested and involved in their local political scene. And if they aren't involved, then why does it matter? While I'm absolutely in favor of everyone having easy access to voting, I don't see any inherent reason that absolutely everyone in the country needs to follow every election like a hawk and feel compelled to vote. 

 

Basically, information on candidates needs to be easy to locate and access, but it doesn't need to be shoved down everyone's throat. 

"Why do candidates need to advertise to everyone?"

Well because almost every adult in the country is a potential vote. 

 

"But it doesnt need to be shoved down everyones throat"

No but at the same time neither do ads for products either. But thats how alot of things make money. There are ways of avoiding that. With spotify you can pay to remove all ads. Same with youtube. Personally i would rather have political ads the try and get more people to vote over hearing the same ads for crap products like skill share any day of the week. But thats a personal preference.

 

As far as why everyone should feel compelled to vote. Well because it effects you. Im not saying anyone should be forced to vote. But at the same time if you dont vote then you shouldnt be able to complain about it. 

 

Voting is free, easy, and very important. I would say local elections are more important then national ones. But the logic is still the same. 

 

60 seconds ads wont give you the whole story. But it can cause you to do some research and learn more. Which is what anyone that cares about the way their nation is going should be doing.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

I disagree. 

 

If someone is dumb enough to believe an ad without doing proper research and thats why they vote for a certain person thats on them.

 

I hate that the world is starting to dumb down everything to cater to the dumb and lazy.

 

Idc what political side you are on or who you support. Your are responsible for what you choose to believe. And i have that same logic outside of politics as well.

 

If your dumb enough to believe an ad on pornhub that pills will make your dick the size of a horse and you spend your money on it thats on you.

 

(Obv when i say you i dont mean you specifically).

What has banning political ads got to do with dumbing down anything. 

 

False advertising has been a thing in most countries for a long time for a very good reason,  people believe what they hear and intelligence does not stop that from happening.  Most political ads are false advertising, they are intentional in trying to deceive the public into thinking their opponents are damaging the country, lying, only out to screw you over etc etc etc.    And that is before you even attempt to cover the issue of the bias in media and advertising because party A has more cash to spend than party B. 

 

As an ardent political hobbyist for the last 20 years I can attest that political ads have a huge impact on election outcomes.  That's why the facebook bias and elections is such a huge topic.   

 

 

 

 

[The1Dickens]

17 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

"But it doesnt need to be shoved down everyones throat"

No but at the same time neither do ads for products either. But thats how alot of things make money.

That is exactly the problem! You shouldn't be a politician for the money. Government isn't a for-profit business. If your goal is to get into office, to fill your own pockets, please, please tattoo that on your forehead so people know who to avoid outright.

17 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Personally i would rather have political ads the try and get more people to vote over hearing the same ads for crap products like skill share any day of the week. But thats a personal preference.

That's a terrible personal preference, if I'm being quite harshly honest. You governing body shouldn't be running for office just to squeeze more money out of you.

17 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

60 seconds ads wont give you the whole story. But it can cause you to do some research and learn more. Which is what anyone that cares about the way their nation is going should be doing.

They also shouldn't be twisting facts, smearing their opponent, and trying to get mobs after someone because of some bullshit make believe allegiance to a color or political party regardless of how it impacts the population. Doing your own research should be about finding out what your candidate is about, not finding out what untruths are twisted out of perspective, or an outright lie. You shouldn't have to sift through shit to find any information about a candidate. Especially today, when literally everything can be faked, twisted, blown out of proportion, and lied about, including your own memories.

 

 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

What has banning political ads got to do with dumbing down anything. 

 

False advertising has been a thing in most countries for a long time for a very good reason,  people believe what they hear and intelligence does not stop that from happening.  Most political ads are false advertising, they are intentional in trying to deceive the public into thinking their opponents are damaging the country, lying, only out to screw you over etc etc etc.    And that is before you even attempt to cover the issue of the bias in media and advertising because party A has more cash to spend than party B. 

 

As an ardent political hobbyist for the last 20 years I can attest that political ads have a huge impact on election outcomes.  That's why the facebook bias and elections is such a huge topic.   

 

 

 

 

Why ban them?

 

Ive seen the arguments that they are misleading and biased and i agree. Most ads are like that.

 

Its up to the person to do their research. I have 0 sympathy for an adult who reads or hears something and automatically believes it to be fact. Esp when we know that all of them are biased.

 

If Intel tells you they have the best gaming cpu out there its technically true. But we know that its not a huge lead over AMDs zen 2 and AMD has much cheaper options. Its up to the consumer to do their research on what they buy. 

 

If someone came up to you and said they spent $600 on a 9900k most of us would look at them and tell them they shouldve done their research before buying.

 

Same concept applies to voting.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, The1Dickens said:

That is exactly the problem! You shouldn't be a politician for the money. Government isn't a for-profit business. If your goal is to get into office, to fill your own pockets, please, please tattoo that on your forehead so people know who to avoid outright.

That's a terrible personal preference, if I'm being quite harshly honest. You governing body shouldn't be running for office just to squeeze more money out of you.

They also shouldn't be twisting facts, smearing their opponent, and trying to get mobs after someone because of some bullshit make believe allegiance to a color or political party regardless of how it impacts the population. Doing your own research should be about finding out what your candidate is about, not finding out what untruths are twisted out of perspective, or an outright lie. You shouldn't have to sift through shit to find any information about a candidate. Especially today, when literally everything can be faked, twisted, blown out of proportion, and lied about, including your own memories.

 

 

Im not paying for the ads. Them running ads on any platform doesnt cost me or you a dime. The only way it costs us money is if we volunteer to give them a donation.

 

Why is it a bad personal preference? I vote every election. Both locally and for president. So id rather hear a political ad that gets me to look up a claim and see whos lying about what. That means more to me then hearing a shit load of ads for companies that make products/services i dont care about and will never use. Its not squeezing money out of me by making me listen to an ad. So i have no idea what you are getting at.

 

Banning ads doesnt take money out of politics. Thats a subject that has nothing to do with this decision 

[mr moose]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Why ban them?

 

because:

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Ive seen the arguments that they are misleading and biased and i agree. Most ads are like that.

Most products that are advertised are running the country, aren't in a position of such power that every aspect of your life is affected by it.

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Its up to the person to do their research. I have 0 sympathy for an adult who reads or hears something and automatically believes it to be fact. Esp when we know that all of them are biased.

 

If Intel tells you they have the best gaming cpu out there its technically true. But we know that its not a huge lead over AMDs zen 2 and AMD has much cheaper options. Its up to the consumer to do their research on what they buy. 

 

If someone came up to you and said they spent $600 on a 9900k most of us would look at them and tell them they shouldve done their research before buying.

 

Same concept applies to voting.

You don't understand people then,  people don't do their research nor educate themselves on anything. Do you want to know why countries are shutting down nuclear power in favor of a futile power source with unknown long term environmental effects?  The evidence is clear, has been put out there in black and white for everyone to see, but people (all humans) are propelled by social narrative, whoever control's that controls the debate.    If you think you can make an educated decision over something when all the information you get is tainted then you are deluding yourself.    The best way to prevent political misinformation is to prevent political advertising.   It is the single biggest effector of elections and that is why they do it.

[RonnieOP]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

because:

Most products that are advertised are running the country, aren't in a position of such power that every aspect of your life is affected by it.

 

You don't understand people then,  people don't do their research nor educate themselves on anything. Do you want to know why countries are shutting down nuclear power in favor of a futile power source with unknown long term environmental effects?  The evidence is clear, has been put out there in black and white for everyone to see, but people (all humans) are propelled by social narrative, whoever control's that controls the debate.    If you think you can make an educated decision over something when all the information you get is tainted then you are deluding yourself.    The best way to prevent political misinformation is to prevent political advertising.   It is the single biggest effector of elections and that is why they do it.

Your right people dont do their research.

 

Whos fault is that? The people not doing the research.

 

Thats my whole point. If you believe everything you read or hear without any evidence or research thats your fault.  Im not going to blame a misleading ad on me being an idiot and not doing my research. Thats asinine..nobody would be to blame but me.

 

People need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Again im not acting high and mighty. Ive made those same foolish mistakes. But im not blaming anyone but myself for those mistakes.

 

If you dont care enough to do actual research on a candidate then why are you voting?

 

And if your not doing research on what an ad tells you then why would i believe that you would go out of your way to seek the truth without them? 

 

So your trying to tell me people wont research the claims.of an ad on the radio but they will take the time to look into every candidate on their own? No they obv wont.

[The1Dickens]

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Your right people dont do their research.

 

Whos fault is that? The people not doing the research.

 

Thats my whole point. If you believe everything you read or hear without any evidence or research thats your fault.  Im not going to blame a misleading ad on me being an idiot and not doing my research. Thats asinine..nobody would be to blame but me.

 

People need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Again im not acting high and mighty. Ive made those same foolish mistakes. But im not blaming anyone but myself for those mistakes.

 

If you dont care enough to do actual research on a candidate then why are you voting?

 

And if your not doing research on what an ad tells you then why would i believe that you would go out of your way to seek the truth without them? 

 

So your trying to tell me people wont research the claims.of an ad on the radio but they will take the time to look into every candidate on their own? No they obv wont.

What research does one do? How would one begin to look into whether or not something is a lie or is the truth? If the advertisement is understood to be untrustworthy in the information it provides, what is its purpose? Why have an advertisement at all, if you are just going to look up the information about a candidate anyways? What qualifies as valid research data, if you can't trust what you read and/or hear? How do you know your research isn't tainted with false data? I'd like to understand your perspective, but I currently see too many holes, or am missing too much information.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Your right people dont do their research.

 

Whos fault is that? The people not doing the research.

 

Thats my whole point. If you believe everything you read or hear without any evidence or research thats your fault.  Im not going to blame a misleading ad on me being an idiot and not doing my research. Thats asinine..nobody would be to blame but me.

 

People need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Again im not acting high and mighty. Ive made those same foolish mistakes. But im not blaming anyone but myself for those mistakes.

 

If you dont care enough to do actual research on a candidate then why are you voting?

 

And if your not doing research on what an ad tells you then why would i believe that you would go out of your way to seek the truth without them? 

 

So your trying to tell me people wont research the claims.of an ad on the radio but they will take the time to look into every candidate on their own? No they obv wont.

My god, your whole solution to a problem derived from the intrinsic nature of being human is to maintain the insanity.

 

 

Why does political advertising work? because it preys on the basic unchanging principals of humanity.  

 

 

 

 

 

[RonnieOP]

2 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

What research does one do? How would one begin to look into whether or not something is a lie or is the truth? If the advertisement is understood to be untrustworthy in the information it provides, what is its purpose? Why have an advertisement at all, if you are just going to look up the information about a candidate anyways? What qualifies as valid research data, if you can't trust what you read and/or hear? How do you know your research isn't tainted with false data? I'd like to understand your perspective, but I currently see too many holes, or am missing too much information.

thats how research works.

 

You go look at sources of different prospective and draw a conclusion.

 

Politics is a very very subjective subject. What you feel is bad for the country may not be what I feel is bad for the country.

 

So I have to research the candidate and their policies and see what i like and what i dont like. and make my choice.

 

I know if i read an article on CNN or Fox News that they are biased. I have to read them both and come to my own conclusion based on my personal values.

 

If I dont do that and i vote for someone who goes against my values then i have no body to blame but myself for not doing my due diligence.

[RonnieOP]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My god, your whole solution to a problem derived from the intrinsic nature of being human is to maintain the insanity.

 

 

Why does political advertising work? because it preys on the basic unchanging principals of humanity.  

 

 

 

 

 

My whole solution to this problem is for people not to be lazy and dumb. including myself.  And thats not exclusive to politics. We need to hold ourselves responsible for the actions we take. If I vote for a person based solely on a radio ad that i did no research on and i later regret that then thats on me. nobody else.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

My whole solution to this problem is for people not to be lazy and dumb. including myself.  And thats not exclusive to politics. We need to hold ourselves responsible for the actions we take. If I vote for a person based solely on a radio ad that i did no research on and i later regret that then thats on me. nobody else.

Exactly you are expecting people to stop being human and do something they are not intrinsically good at doing.  Rather than the much easier and more beneficial  method of stopping the predator from preying on them.   You are literally blaming the victim of the liar for being fallible instead of stopping the liar who knows exactly what they are doing.