aquafunk

aquafunk, 1 day ago

can’t labels and artists pay for some kind of premium placement in discover weekly, release radar, and playlist recs?

ok, after some research, found this:

In some cases, commercial considerations, such as the cost of content or whether we can monetize it, may influence our recommendations. For example, Discovery Mode gives artists and labels the opportunity to identify songs that are a priority for them, and our system will add that signal to the algorithms that determine the content of personalized listening sessions. When an artist or label turns on Discovery Mode for a song, Spotify charges a commission on streams of that song in areas of the platform where Discovery Mode is active (Discovery Mode is not active in our editorial playlists). This signal increases the likelihood of the selected songs being recommended, but does not guarantee it.

so, at the very least, the recs you get are definitely not organic, and favor major labels, rich folks, and if Spotify can make any money off streaming the track in the first place

not saying the algorithm doesn’t get it right most of the time (they’d be shooting themselves in the foot if it was all sponsored), but if it’s favoring big labels and drowning out everyone else in the name of revenue for Spotify, I prefer to choose other ways to find new stuff. if Spotify needs more money to pay the bills, imho they should plainly be asking the consumers up front

aquafunk, 4 days ago

downvotes are not to express disagreement!

so many comments here about adding regulations and “this should be illegal” and, yes, those may be a valid way to curb this behavior

but customers willing to leave a company for bad behavior, customers wary of new products without asdurances they wont just become useless, non-reusable e-waste could also effectively curb this behavior

just because you want to outsource all of your product and company research to a law or regulation, and want to be able to blindly buy products and just hope the company doesn’t make bad choices in every regard but quartly profits doesn’t mean it is the only effective check & balance

aquafunk, 4 days ago

whoops. maybe I should read the entire thing next time

aquafunk, 4 days ago

The way I understood it is a commercial for McD in the US isnt required to have real food; a commercial for McD’s “whatever” has to have the actual item being advertised, but can be so meticulously crafted, you’d never see one like that in the wild. A commercial for a grocery chain, for example- most/all of of the food you see is props made to look like the most appetizing food youve ever dreamed of.

Who knows if this is enforced. NPR and PBS stations are specifically prohibited from “sponsorship” messages mentioning a specific product or service, and they’ve been ignoring that for decades.

aquafunk, 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

They care about being able to hire labor, which we provide, and they care about revenue and profit, which we also provide. Not defending any behavior, but the consequences in a healthy economy would largely come from customers, potential and current employees. Failing that, large issues would be overcome by regulations, or at least enforcing existing ones (codified rules against monopolies, for examples, are just words if not enforced).

Without consumers willing (and able) to make sacrifices (like paying higher prices) to reward good corporate behavior, and to avoid companies with purely short-term profit motivated behavior, this is what we can and should expect. Nevermind companies are rewarded by shareholder and investor support based more on profits than.how those profits were made, especially when many of those shareholders feel forced to turn to the stock market to fund their retirement, as pensions are so increasingly a rare option.

Would voting for fresh representatives possibly increase instability in out daily lives? Is that instability a possibly necessary cost of maintaining effective regulation of the investor class that has captured our legislative system to their own benefit?

There are systemic problems at play here- not to downplay the choices this individual company made, but the focus could be on the larger forces at work. If your first reaction is that boycotts and choices by consumers and employees, no matter how organized and widespread, do not work, then I ask you, dear reader, to consider what might work to make the necessary systemic changes, and what, if anything, you can do to help make them happen.

The investor class has made it clear what their playbook is, as they have time and time again thru history: explotation, and as much of it as they can get away with. The question then becomes what us, the ever-increasingly exploited, are going to do about it.

no war but class war.

ed:I hope that didnt come off as disagreement- just trying to voice frustration with a side of “everyone who agrees with you please take a moment to think about the big picture, and what you can do about it” because I’m also tired of this slide into an increasingly boring dystopia

aquafunk, 5 days ago

I find myself immediately opening the video transcript for many videos. creating a well made video that offers more than a few paragraphs of text is often a challenge

aquafunk, 14 days ago

Nothing I ever do is a failure, it’s just some shit I did.

amazing. I’m stealing this

aquafunk, 14 days ago

I like the way the author describes the intentions of the bill at face value (protecting children!) exactly as the authors do, without any journalistic analysis of that being true or not. Could have ended the article with actual information from somewhere like the EFF, but instead, mentioned a concern from a nonprofit that “receives money from tech companies.”

What an absolute joke to call this journalism. No wonder they’re losing their jobs to algorithmic language models with no concern for anything other than sensible use of English grammar.

aquafunk, 3 months ago

Everybody loses but the investment firm.

by. design.

it’s so hard to watch people in late-stage capitalism still have faith enough in the integrity of the whole thing to give a go at it, and inevitably get smacked down by the few with all the dollar, as if it werent all rigged against them from the beginning. I hope theyve learned and pivoted their efforts into helping press the big RESET button rather than kicking the can down the road, no matter how pure the intentions

there’s a class war on, and we’re losing. honestly, truly, maybe we don’t need an ethical review website right now, unless youre reviewing torches and pitchforks? I say this out of frustration that so many of the people behind that site will just pointlessly try to play by the rules again. the war needs more good fighters, not people who continue to swallow the lie that the way forward is playing by the current, just so laughably rigged game

i dont care that this whole comment is a cliche

cliches are cliches for a reason

fuck Google, the employees and shareholders

eat the fucking rich

aquafunk, 7 months ago

not to say thats not happening as well, but iirc the CA legislature historically has a big cram to pass most of their bills at the end of the session in september. Ive noticed the flood, too, but this happens every year, all the signing and vetoing lumped together

aquafunk, 8 months ago

“hue” refers to a color value in how it differes from other colors (red vs blue), but is separate from “lightness” or “saturation.” a “light blue” may have the same hue as a “dark blue.”

have you ever seen the color pickers with a giant rainbow circle, and a separate white/black slider? the rainbow circle is for selecting the hue.

aquafunk, 8 months ago

ATM0 so you don"t wake your parents while youre dialing in somewhere