Spotify Will Stop Running Political Ads In 2020

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

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.

We have much different opinions on what makes someone a victim.

 

If its just human nature to be dumb and lazy then thats a much bigger issue we need to work to correct over political ads.

 

And ill ask again. if people are too lazy to research a claim on an ad are we really to believe they are going to research a candidate at all?

 

I dont believe its human nature to be dumb, lazy, and gullible. I dont know many people that see an ad and believe it 100% especially not a political ad. My 8 yer old might believe a TV ad as gospel but she cant vote.

 

But i should clarify. I dont have an issue with these companies blocking political ads. its their platform and i support them doing what they want on it.

 

My biggest issue here is that grown ass adults cant think for themselves and want to blame others for it. In 2019 where millions of sources are quickly available with a quick google search while you are sitting on the toilet theres really no excuse for blaming others for an ill informed decision.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

We have much different opinions on what makes someone a victim.

 

If its just human nature to be dumb and lazy then thats a much bigger issue we need to work to correct over political ads.

 

And ill ask again. if people are too lazy to research a claim on an ad are we really to believe they are going to research a candidate at all?

 

I dont believe its human nature to be dumb, lazy, and gullible. I dont know many people that see an ad and believe it 100% especially not a political ad. My 8 yer old might believe a TV ad as gospel but she cant vote.

 

But i should clarify. I dont have an issue with these companies blocking political ads. its their platform and i support them doing what they want on it.

 

My biggest issue here is that grown ass adults cant think for themselves and want to blame others for it. In 2019 where millions of sources are quickly available with a quick google search while you are sitting on the toilet theres really no excuse for blaming others for an ill informed decision.

 

What you are trying to define as dumb and lazy is just an inherent trait of all humans, yourself included.

 

People are not dumb and lazy, they are just fallible and no one has enough of the right information to be anything other than a victim in situations like this.  If you think you know what each party motivated by and why they are telling you what they are then you are probable worse than the average human because you are critically analyzing it and still falling victim to the lies.

 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

20 hours ago, floofer said:

 

 

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).

 

Never even had the inkling to use that 3 month Spotify Premium trial, despite them spamming my inbox more so than AOL did back in their heyday. Though I mostly listen to stuff locally, and very seldom use Spotify at all, soo...

 

[RonnieOP]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

What you are trying to define as dumb and lazy is just an inherent trait of all humans, yourself included.

 

People are not dumb and lazy, they are just fallible and no one has enough of the right information to be anything other than a victim in situations like this.  If you think you know what each party motivated by and why they are telling you what they are then you are probable worse than the average human because you are critically analyzing it and still falling victim to the lies.

 

 

 

I dont agree that it is inherent trait of all humans to be gullible. In fact I think most people inherently question the things they are told. We tend to question everything.

 

Yes we do have enough to make an informed decision thats not just based off a 30 second radio ad. We have basically an infinite supply of sources at our finger tips.

 

Im not saying that im immune to being lied to. nobody is. and banning political ads on spotify isnt going to stop that. I know that nobody in politics is going to do everything they say they are. But that doesnt mean i cant look up their policies and see if they align with my values more then another person.

 

Just like everyone ive been burned by someone i voted for on certain things. but ive also gotten alot of what i wanted out of them to. The last person i voted for has turned out really well for my personal values. During primaries i spent a good amount of time researching the candidates and comparing their past actions and their plans for the future.

 

But the times i have been burned were not due to political ads on any platform. With or without them i wouldve been burned. But had I made my decision based solely on a radio ad I couldnt imagine how i could blame the ad alone.

[RonnieOP]

20 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Never even had the inkling to use that 3 month Spotify Premium trial, despite them spamming my inbox more so than AOL did back in their heyday. Though I mostly listen to stuff locally, and very seldom use Spotify at all, soo...

 

Youtube red to me is the way to go.

 

Not only do you get Play Music (which as far as i can tell is the same as spotify) but you get ad free youtube while still supporting the creators.

 

If I could only keep one of my monthly subscriptions it would be youtube red (or whatever its called now) and its not even a hard decision.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Never even had the inkling to use that 3 month Spotify Premium trial, despite them spamming my inbox more so than AOL did back in their heyday. Though I mostly listen to stuff locally, and very seldom use Spotify at all, soo...

 

Its just more convenient for me to use Apple Music (yes im one of those but I get student discount) than to download the music. Good on you though for keeping it old school  - at least no ads. Whats probably more embarrassing is my local Gym used to use Spotify - although the free version, so you would get ads so often, just annoying. 

[ravenshrike]

20 hours ago, floofer said:

There is no agenda. Extract from article:

 

*sighs* Legally(Section 315 of the Communications Act) if you accept political ads you have to accept the ads of any political opponents as well. Effectively the only screening criteria allowed is outright lies based on unequivocal facts, terroristic threats, or obscenity. That's why the organizations are moving to outright bans. They are legally unable to run political ads if they wish to refuse running Trump ads.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

*sighs* Legally(Section 315 of the Communications Act) if you accept political ads you have to accept the ads of any political opponents as well. Effectively the only screening criteria allowed is outright lies based on unequivocal facts, terroristic threats, or obscenity. That's why the organizations are moving to outright bans. They are legally unable to run political ads if they wish to refuse running Trump ads.

They weren't refusing to run Trump ads? IDK where you get that from. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Shouldn't they ban open & covert political songs as well? i'm just saying. since you're trying not to be political.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

I dont agree that it is inherent trait of all humans to be gullible. In fact I think most people inherently question the things they are told. We tend to question everything.

We are by nature naive because it is not possible to have all the information.  The limits of being human mean that the vast majority can only apply themselves to one or two professions at best.  In this day and age the world of politics and social narrative are so complex that you'd have to be well entrenched in that side of humanities as a career to have at least a half decent understanding.  I just don;t see the average person as being well educated enough to be able to accurately conclude anything from political ads.  And that is not a dig at people, it's just a fact of life for all of us.  There are so many topics I just fail at understanding, and the only reason I know this is because I am open to discussion with people like yourself on such topics.   I have been doing it since the late 90's on internet forums and earlier than that in community groups where I have been employed as an consultant on social welfare matters.  The amount of times I have seen evidence first hand that just turns every understanding I have had on a subject upside down,  has left me very skeptical about the motives of everyone, and (as some on this forum will attest) it also means I won't attribute motive to an action without evidence. 

 

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Yes we do have enough to make an informed decision thats not just based off a 30 second radio ad. We have basically an infinite supply of sources at our finger tips.

You might be surprised to find out how many of those sources aren't exactly accurate.    Try reconciling party policy from two opposing parties to all the media articles on them and you'll be blown away at just how much information is missing.  Sometimes it highlights what we al;ready know about politics, sometimes it highlights bias in media but every time it highlights that highly accurate information is not easily obtainable in the realms of political debate.   And this is before we even consider some traits of humanity that go even further against the grain.  Were by if you have enough personal beliefs shattered many people try to deal with that by digging their heals in even further and outright reject the evidence.  We see this in anti vaxxer circles a lot.  Others (definitely not the majority of humanity) can take a breath and re-evaluate their understanding.  I consider myself in the last category, but know that I still find myself falling for internal biases as I am human like everyone else.

 

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Im not saying that im immune to being lied to. nobody is. and banning political ads on spotify isnt going to stop that. I know that nobody in politics is going to do everything they say they are. But that doesnt mean i cant look up their policies and see if they align with my values more then another person.

But it does reduce the impact of those ads,  if people aren't bombarded with such content, then come election day they are either not going to vote at all (which is probably what you want if they aren't interested in following what each party has to say) or they are going to vote based on policy and more critical portrayal of said policy rather than the propaganda.

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Just like everyone ive been burned by someone i voted for on certain things. but ive also gotten alot of what i wanted out of them to. The last person i voted for has turned out really well for my personal values. During primaries i spent a good amount of time researching the candidates and comparing their past actions and their plans for the future.

 

But the times i have been burned were not due to political ads on any platform. With or without them i wouldve been burned. But had I made my decision based solely on a radio ad I couldnt imagine how i could blame the ad alone.

 

And that's sounds like the ideal situation for all voters (it pleases me to hear voters talk this way), however it does not accurately reflect the majority of the population.  For example I draw your attention to the stupidly high number of google searches for "what does brexit mean"  after the vote they had.  That is something that they should have already known before the vote and the only way to explain that uptick is if people genuinely didn't understand what it meant when they voted.   Why is that a problem? because people don;t understand nor follow politics, they react to propaganda and political ads only (the stuff shoved in their face). Hence why I like the idea of removing that. It forces people to vote on more grounded information or results in them not voting rather than tricking them into voting a specific way because they have fallen victim to marketing tactics. 

[Techstorm970]

Awww!  Imagine the fun we could've had!

 

"I'M DONALD TRUMP, AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!"

*Crab Rave starts playing*

[Nicnac]

Is this some poor joke I’m too rich to understand?

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Shouldn't they ban open & covert political songs as well? i'm just saying. since you're trying not to be political.

The difference is they don't need to appraise each song for it's content, the user requests the songs or rejects them, the ads however are served up based on who pays for them not what the user defines as their political preference.  Spotify don't want to end up being engulfed in the same debacle that facebook was during the last election.   best way to do that is ban all political ads. 

[Jeppes]

15 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).

No that's on you who makes decisions based on facts. Your vote does not really count because 10 idiots saw an add or a facebook post containing pure lies. 

[The1Dickens]

7 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

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

That's not research, though. You are judging how much you value someone's opinion based on how much it matches up with yours.

 

7 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

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

How do you research the candidate, if all the sources are biased? If you look at Source A, then at Source B, and then decide to go with Source B, what influenced that decision? What information was in Source B that wasn't in Source A, when both Source A and Source B are known to have invalid data? If you go with "what I like and what I don't like", that's not research, that's confirmation bias. And where does advertising come in to the research part? Would it not be easier to ignore the advertisement, since you already know it's false information?

7 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

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.

Comparing two bad data points doesn't put you any closer to an accurate conclusion than not having any data points. It could even do more harm by giving you the wrong conclusion.

7 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

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.

Or, you are not to blame, because the information you based your decision on was false. If you can't find accurate information because you can't tell the difference between good and bad information, how do you make a 'good' decision? The underlying theme to all of these questions is the validity of the information you are being fed or digging up, and how do you judge what is good information versus what is bad.

8 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

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.

That is fine, you are allowed to vote however you want. I just want to make sure that the information you receive to make a conclusion on who is the better candidate in your eyes, is accurate, untainted, and valid. As much as possible, anyways. Because the information you have access to should be objective. And reducing advertising is that much less misinformation that you have to try to cross reference and fact check. Misinformation has become such a viable tactic, because it works so well on everyone. (Seriously, if you want to be scared about anything you think you know, look up historical misinformation campaigns.)

 

The whole political landscape needs an overhaul, but for now, I'll be satisfied with getting less advertisements.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

 Misinformation has become such a viable tactic, because it works so well on everyone.

This is so true, the reality is that in the last 200 years we have gone from barely being able to communicate with neighboring countries to reading information (good, bad or indifferent) in almost real time from anyone on the planet.  We have not evolved in any way to be able to deal with so much information,  which is why we are so susceptible to bad information. 

[Beskamir]

On 12/27/2019 at 10:06 PM, 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.

As much as I love your idea, I'm too much of a pessimist to expect it to work unless candidates were forced to remain anonymous. Since otherwise people wouldn't bother reading that much text and would simply rely on the physical attractiveness stereotype just as they are currently doing.