4 ms·

How do we fix this? Televisions are badly broken

6 points by robomartin 3y ago

Televisions and, to a lesser extent, streaming devices have become abusive and intrusive. Abusive in the sense that they have turned every screen in a home into digital signage loaded with advertising. TV manufacturers are doing as they please. Every firmware update makes it worse. Nothing seems to regulate how they behave, the decisions they make and what they can and cannot do. Intrusive, because they are tracking absolutely everything they can through these devices. Televisions, in this sense, have become surveillance devices. One particularly egregious example of this is a service from Vizio. They want consumers to upload their images through their TV's into a service hosted by the company. The terms of service clearly state that they can do as they wish with these images (paraphrasing). Anyone at Vizio and associated entities can look at them. This is wrong. It has to stop. It isn't getting better. Clearly we are at a point where legislation, some kind of a lawsuit, or both, are required. The question is: How? I contacted my US Representative with a request to look into this. About 30 days later I got a form letter with a "thank you" and that was that. I get it. This won't drive votes. Which means they don't really care. So, how does one raise this to a level of awareness that will lead to change when it has no political value at this moment in time? Before you reply with things like installing ad blockers, firewalls, etc., understand that those are solutions for a privileged few as a percentage of the affected population. If we consider consumers in general, these are not solutions at all. This is about protecting all consumers, not just the technologically capable and financially-able to explore engineering-level patches. Any ideas?

dredmorbius 3y ago
I'm looking at another regulatory issue, and would suggest: - File specific complaints with manufacturers, and copy your local (state) and national legisltors, as well as consumer-interest office (usually state's attorney general office, as well as the DoJ, FTC (trade) and FCC (communications). - Look up U.S. regulatory agencies (FTC, FCC, DoJ (anti-trust)), as well as U.S. Congressional committees for hearings on the issue. Familiarise yourself with any present state of discussion, and identify what elements you think are missing or weak among those. - Look for both the witnesses and the regulators and legislators speaking about the issue, as well as what they have to say. - Witnesses typically represent either industry (typically opposed to your interests) and citizens (usually mis-named "consumers"). Look especially for groups representing privacy interests (EFF, ACLU, EPIC), or senior interests. Consumers Union is another likely ally. Contact the entities you think might be able to help most directly. You're not looking to change the minds of industry groups (though you might ask them for specific information on what their goals and initiatives are, so that you can help sabotage those, of course), but rather to find groups already on your side. - It's possible that creators (studios, producers, actors, screenwriters) might also have interests here, though it's difficult to say how those align. - A huge factor in all of this is how broadcast and streaming content are monetised. The classic mechanisms have been general advertising (traditional over-the-air), targeted advertising (common online, of course, but also often with cable providers, at startlingly high levels of specificity), subscription (cable, but also streaming and other services: Netflix, HBO, YouTube, Hulu, etc.), membership and public support (public broadcasters, with varying models in the US and elsewhere). Providing viable alternatives to ad-supported media seems to me one key leg of change. - Privacy protections would be another approach. The U.S. has no general privacy law, and it seems unlikely for one to pass on any near- or medium-term future. I'd specifically look at penalties for the transfer or sale of information, as the collection itself might be difficult to stop for various reasons. Taking the commercial value out of an activity is an excellent way to stop it. - If you want to step it up a level, organising locally, with talks at libraries, local groups (schools, churches / temples, service organisations, clubs, senior centers, etc.) can help collect voices, and make you a more formidable force. Libraries will typically offer free meeting space to any group of three or more. I'm not a fan of individual initiative as a systemic solution, and authors such as Giblin and Doctorow (Chokepoint Capitalism) explain in detail why that's a very limited approach, and what can be done instead. Still, there are personal accommodation options you might consider: - Buying and renting physical media remains an option. If you're principally watching for entertainment, consider this. Public libraries often have large video collections. - Piracy is another option, and is one way of sending a market signal. Ironically, most pirate services offer a far better privacy proposition than "legitimate" content providers. - There is a tremendous amount of non-broadcast / nontraditional media available. This includes audiobooks, both commercial and noncommercial services. The Internet Archive, Librevox, and (if a qualifying household) the Library of Congress's BARD service for the blind have extensive sets of works and periodicals in audio format. Podcasts are another option. - Using a non-television display option (computer monitor, projector, etc.) is another option. These might include over-the-air cards or cable adaptors, or be used with other streaming or archival services or options. - Return any devices with conditions you will not agree to as unsuited for purpose as initially purchased. My own approach has been to not own a television, which I've successfully managed personally for over five decades.
- robomartin 3y ago
  Thanks for posting a list of interesting ideas. Sadly, the last few are not applicable because they don't really help the majority of citizens. At this point I think government has to force a set of rules on this industry. I can't see self regulation as a reality. As far as I know, there is no legislation whatsoever controlling what TV manufacturers can show on your screen, when and how. They could display the most objectionable, offensive, disturbing and inappropriate content on that screen and you'd have no say at all. If we think about kids, faith and a range of other classifications, it is easy to see that having TV manufacturers do as they please with these screens isn't good for citizens. The things they might display can easily be in a range between unwanted and deeply offensive to various portions of the population. In short, I think nothing on that screen should be showing without opt-in. If all you want to see are buttons for the apps you pay for, that should be it. Nothing else. No ads, recommendations, etc. Apps, like Netflix, are a different matter. You can unsubscribe and that's it. The TV is this physical device that cost a significant amount of money. Today, consumers have very little control on what's shown when they turn on the TV.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Trust me, my principle focus is on collective action. This is a systemic and regulatory problem, and needs to be addressed at that level. I ... get really tired ... of people who advocate only a personal-action response, or argue that that is sufficient. I disagree strongly with both views. That said, the systemic approach is going to be a long, slow, and frustrating road. Keep in mind that all of the surveillance and advertising actually does subsidize the devices, though a key problem seems to be that there are no general market device options available at any price. This ... is a peculiar mode of market failure in the absence of regulation. Good luck!
    - robomartin 3y ago
      I am going to take a more direct path to initiating a conversation with my local US Congressional Representative. Time to visit his office. Sending a note via the website was a waste of time. Not saying an in-person visit won't lead to equivalent results. I just have to try.

6 points by robomartin 3y ago

dredmorbius 3y ago

I'm looking at another regulatory issue, and would suggest: - File specific complaints with manufacturers, and copy your local (state) and national legisltors, as well as consumer-interest office (usually state's attorney general office, as well as the DoJ, FTC (trade) and FCC (communications). - Look up U.S. regulatory agencies (FTC, FCC, DoJ (anti-trust)), as well as U.S. Congressional committees for hearings on the issue. Familiarise yourself with any present state of discussion, and identify what elements you think are missing or weak among those. - Look for both the witnesses and the regulators and legislators speaking about the issue, as well as what they have to say. - Witnesses typically represent either industry (typically opposed to your interests) and citizens (usually mis-named "consumers"). Look especially for groups representing privacy interests (EFF, ACLU, EPIC), or senior interests. Consumers Union is another likely ally. Contact the entities you think might be able to help most directly. You're not looking to change the minds of industry groups (though you might ask them for specific information on what their goals and initiatives are, so that you can help sabotage those, of course), but rather to find groups already on your side. - It's possible that creators (studios, producers, actors, screenwriters) might also have interests here, though it's difficult to say how those align. - A huge factor in all of this is how broadcast and streaming content are monetised. The classic mechanisms have been general advertising (traditional over-the-air), targeted advertising (common online, of course, but also often with cable providers, at startlingly high levels of specificity), subscription (cable, but also streaming and other services: Netflix, HBO, YouTube, Hulu, etc.), membership and public support (public broadcasters, with varying models in the US and elsewhere). Providing viable alternatives to ad-supported media seems to me one key leg of change. - Privacy protections would be another approach. The U.S. has no general privacy law, and it seems unlikely for one to pass on any near- or medium-term future. I'd specifically look at penalties for the transfer or sale of information, as the collection itself might be difficult to stop for various reasons. Taking the commercial value out of an activity is an excellent way to stop it. - If you want to step it up a level, organising locally, with talks at libraries, local groups (schools, churches / temples, service organisations, clubs, senior centers, etc.) can help collect voices, and make you a more formidable force. Libraries will typically offer free meeting space to any group of three or more. I'm not a fan of individual initiative as a systemic solution, and authors such as Giblin and Doctorow (Chokepoint Capitalism) explain in detail why that's a very limited approach, and what can be done instead. Still, there are personal accommodation options you might consider: - Buying and renting physical media remains an option. If you're principally watching for entertainment, consider this. Public libraries often have large video collections. - Piracy is another option, and is one way of sending a market signal. Ironically, most pirate services offer a far better privacy proposition than "legitimate" content providers. - There is a tremendous amount of non-broadcast / nontraditional media available. This includes audiobooks, both commercial and noncommercial services. The Internet Archive, Librevox, and (if a qualifying household) the Library of Congress's BARD service for the blind have extensive sets of works and periodicals in audio format. Podcasts are another option. - Using a non-television display option (computer monitor, projector, etc.) is another option. These might include over-the-air cards or cable adaptors, or be used with other streaming or archival services or options. - Return any devices with conditions you will not agree to as unsuited for purpose as initially purchased. My own approach has been to not own a television, which I've successfully managed personally for over five decades.

robomartin 3y ago
Thanks for posting a list of interesting ideas. Sadly, the last few are not applicable because they don't really help the majority of citizens. At this point I think government has to force a set of rules on this industry. I can't see self regulation as a reality. As far as I know, there is no legislation whatsoever controlling what TV manufacturers can show on your screen, when and how. They could display the most objectionable, offensive, disturbing and inappropriate content on that screen and you'd have no say at all. If we think about kids, faith and a range of other classifications, it is easy to see that having TV manufacturers do as they please with these screens isn't good for citizens. The things they might display can easily be in a range between unwanted and deeply offensive to various portions of the population. In short, I think nothing on that screen should be showing without opt-in. If all you want to see are buttons for the apps you pay for, that should be it. Nothing else. No ads, recommendations, etc. Apps, like Netflix, are a different matter. You can unsubscribe and that's it. The TV is this physical device that cost a significant amount of money. Today, consumers have very little control on what's shown when they turn on the TV.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Trust me, my principle focus is on collective action. This is a systemic and regulatory problem, and needs to be addressed at that level. I ... get really tired ... of people who advocate only a personal-action response, or argue that that is sufficient. I disagree strongly with both views. That said, the systemic approach is going to be a long, slow, and frustrating road. Keep in mind that all of the surveillance and advertising actually does subsidize the devices, though a key problem seems to be that there are no general market device options available at any price. This ... is a peculiar mode of market failure in the absence of regulation. Good luck!
  - robomartin 3y ago
    I am going to take a more direct path to initiating a conversation with my local US Congressional Representative. Time to visit his office. Sending a note via the website was a waste of time. Not saying an in-person visit won't lead to equivalent results. I just have to try.