I just closed my Spotify account; I have no desire to enrich dangerous pro-virus propagandists. Fortunately, it's easy and painless to move (almost everything is available elsewhere). @violetblue has great instructions for finding alternatives and migrating playlists, etc. below.
@violetblue I don't do this lightly. I know the revenue from my account is relatively small, and that the anti-vax stuff is only part of their offerings. And I do things like subscribe to newspapers that print editorials that sometimes offend me. But Spotify has siimply lost its way.
@violetblue In particular, when I signed up with Spotify it was a music streaming service with a few podcasts. Now it's basically a podcasting platform (giving exclusive multi-million deals to dangerous propagandists), with music streaming on the side.
Not for me.
Almost all the music available on Spotify is available elsewhere. But Spotify pays somewhere between $0.50 and $0.70 per users ($100MM total) to carry Rogan exclusively on their platform.
Well, I guess I'll take my $0.50 elsewhere.
I wouldn't have known anything about this (and wouldn't have thought to leave) if it weren't for Neil Young and Joni Mitchell's pulling their music from the platform. The loss to Spotify isn't just fans of theirs leaving, but people hearing about the issue due to the splash.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Heh. Guy just threatened to boycott Georgetown because I canceled my Spotify account.
Go for it, bro.
I'm a little surprised this guy was apparently OK with me until he found out I no longer have a Spotify account. I guess that was the last straw or something.
Sorry, Georgetown fundraising department.
General consensus, however, is that I must be a moron, an imbecile, a spoiled millennial, or a censor. Several people suggested I perform an act that, frankly, seems beyond anatomical plausibility.
Perhaps they're OK with books about the Holocaust, as long as they aren't unpleasant or anything.
I didn't read Maus in middle school, because it hadn't been written yet. Instead, we had visits and lectures from Holocaust survivors, who shared what they witnessed and experienced.
It was (necessarily) far more profane and disturbing than Spiegelman's (or any) book could be.
I'm not in the UK, and not steeped in the details of this proposal, but this is a broadly terrible idea that will do serious harm to computer security.
"Non professional" researchers often find and report critical vulnerabilities. Excluding or discouraging them is insane.
Computer security has a long history of contributions from people without formal education, training, certification, or affiliation. The idea that such people should be regarded as inherently "suspect" is not just classist and offensive, but empirically false.
The only people who benefit from proposals like this are those fortunate enough qualify to be in the official "legitimate" group. Everyone else, including the public, loses.
One of the former "Voatz" people just crawled out from under their rock to cry about criticism of insecure voting systems (like Voatz). If you're not familiar with Voatz, here's an example of what the kinds of researchers he's complaining about have found: usenix.org/conference/use…
So, yeah, I can see how people associated with that company would really dislike the concept of independent security analysis of voting system. It must really irk them.
To be fair, he says we should just give more credit for "trying".