Ah, so a slow replacement of human created culture by AI feel-alikes, all while almost nobody who creates anything gets paid.
Not precisely what I had in mind from the term "decent".
ps. I know that for most users of Spotify, the above description of the service doesn't correspond to their reality. But it is an accurate description of the service, nevertheless.
I feel like this is a bad-faith response, no offense. A person explained why cable TV is a bad deal and wished there was a “decent” alternative. Clearly, “decent” is being used from the user perspective, not the effect it has on society.
From the user perspective Spotify is indeed “decent”.
On-demand, unlimited access to essentially all music for a flat fee.
But switching the definition of “decent” to what its effects on society are seems unfair. It’s not like the price gouging cable business model has avoided race to the bottom reality TV either.
I'm not switching the definition of decent. I'm noting what the actual effect of Spotify's business model and operations are. If you find it decent a user, and are OK with the long term impact, go ahead and use it. People just need to be reminded from time to time that their individual choices (as "users") have ramifications beyond whether they get decent service.
Also, as a side note: HN is a generally US-centric (and more broadly anglophone) context. The word "decent" in english currently has some related but not trivial to distinguish meanings. There's a British english version (now spreading into American english, certainly among younger cohorts) which equates roughly to "quality". There's also a version that is more related to some sense of morality. A "decent person" isn't so much about what they will do, as what they won't. There's the version used in the question "Are you decent?", asked before entering a room. This is partly why I asked what the OP meant.
