3 ms·
Why do we need a law? No one forced you to buy a Slingbox. We shouldn’t automatically reach to government intervention to solve every one of our pet peeves. I
by avalys 6y ago
Why do we need a law? No one forced you to buy a Slingbox.
We shouldn’t automatically reach to government intervention to solve every one of our pet peeves.
I don’t buy random gadgets that require cloud support from no-name companies for precisely this reason. You’re free to do the same. Eternal support for your consumer electronics is not a fundamental human right.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoMy only Slingbox purchase was an early standalone model, that didn't need a cloud connection. Migration to cloud-centric models put me off their product, permanently.
- josephcsible 6y agoWhy do we need a law that bans lead paint and asbestos? Why do we need a law that requires cars to have backup cameras? Why do we need a law that requires buildings to have wheelchair ramps?
- barnesto 6y agobecause cloud services for broadcast tv are none of those things.
- cbozeman 6y agoBecause those things dramatically impact society's health and well-being and not being able to do whatever it is that a Slingbox does... doesn't?
- zbrozek 6y agoe-waste is among the worst flavors of post-consumer waste. If a lack of corporate attention span is meaningfully driving up its creation, then it's probably in society's interest to pay attention to that issue.
- pjc50 6y ago> Why do we need a law that requires cars to have backup cameras? That one is definitely part of the car upgrade treadmill rather than fully supported by evidence. It's also far from universal. (See also "e-call", the EU proposal that cars should automatically text their location to the police when involved in an accident)
- lvs 6y agoWe need lots of laws for consumer protection. It's in society's interests to regulate business plans. This falls under right-to-repair.
- icebraining 6y agoAgreed, let's have fewer laws. Let's abolish the DMCA and copyright protection.
- burnte 6y agoYou're right that the purchase was a choice, but we already have laws pertaining to fitness, minimum warranties, safety, etc. Without a method of looking into the future to know that a product will be bricked by the maker in a year or two, the next best safeguard is minimums for viability set by law.
- avalys 6y agoThose laws and regulations are justifiable because the hazard of an unsafe product is worth the cost of the regulation to prevent, and their scope generally doesn’t exceed the bare minimum needed to ensure safety. There is no law that says, for instance, that the Slingbox has to be reliable, has to produce acceptable image quality, or has to be priced competitively. As a society we leave it up to the individual to make those judgements. I am simply suggesting that the question of “How long will the manufacturer maintain the service this device depends on?” should fall in the category of those sorts of questions, and not the “Will this device kill me if I plug it into the wall?” category that regulation should be reserved for.
- smnrchrds 6y ago> Those laws and regulations are justifiable because the hazard of an unsafe product Most consumer protection laws are not about hazard and safety. For example, credit card companies having to refund fraudulent transactions has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with protecting people in the vastly power-imbalanced bank-client relationship.
- burnte 6y agoActually there are regulations about reliability, etc. You can't make grossly misleading claims, Magnuson-Moss, lemon laws, companies are routinely punished via class action suits for poor products, and can even be charged criminally for bad products. It's not all just about safety.