Advertising can be done without arbitrary code execution. Magazines, broadcast TV, radio, podcasts, movie theaters, billboards, news papers, etc. all manage to do it without that. Spotify already has a way to deliver audio and video to the machine, nothing else is required, and if they used that existing avenue, blockers couldn't stop it.

Audio and video ads are super annoying and I'm reminded of that every time I listen to radio or watch TV, which is why I gave up on both. No thanks.

The issue isn't one of arbitrary code execution. Lets not be hypocrites.

AdBlock Plus has over 200 million installs on the desktop alone. Are you going to tell me that those 200+ million users of AdBlock Plus are concerned with arbitrary code execution? What percentage of those users do even know what that even means?

Between 10% and 20% of Internet users are using ad-blockers. Lets do an imagination exercise and say that Spotify would only serve images for ads. How many of those 10 to 20% of Internet users would whitelist Spotify?

"None" would be my guess.

Whitelisting won't even be a factor because ad blockers won't work against ads delivered along with the main content. At least not without way more processing power, much more complex software, and a lot more volunteers creating filters manually. The current ad delivery methods are what makes the ads so easy to block. So, being unable to block ads, users will either deal with it, pay for ad-free, or leave, and then the real value of the service will be revealed.

I'm not convinced this is as difficult as you describe.

https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/11/15/designing-audio...

>>Perhaps the reason you're using an ad-blocker is because you don't want to be tracked

I use adblockers to protect myself against malicious content masquerading as ads, which both the ad delivery networks and content platforms have proven unwilling or unable to address to an acceptable extent.

I honestly don't consider this particularly relevant, especially in the case of Spotify which has a paid ad-free option (as opposed to something like cnn.com, where you don't have a choice).

If you want to boycott Spotify for endangering people's computers, go ahead. Heck, if you want to attempt to use Spotify with an ad-blocker, go ahead. I don't feel morally comfortable using ad-blockers, but I won't fault others for using them.

You do not get to use Spotify's free tier, block their only potential revenue stream for that tier, and then turn around and cry fowl when Spotify notices and bans you.

Completely agree. Spotify offers two options: free with ads, or paid with no ads. Completely up to you which one to go with. If you don't like ads they have and option for you. I don't like ads either, and I use an adblocker to block tracking and protect against malware. I also want to use Spotify. So I pay for it. How self righteous do you have to be to complain about this? If you don't like Spotify's model, don't use the service. It's a perfectly valid option, and there are plenty of alternatives.