5 ms·

Do you believe that consumer protections should not exist?

by devmor 3y ago

fargle 3y ago
yes, almost. for example, if a company made a car alarm called "SUPER EXTRA SECURE ELITE++ V5" and told me it had a "guaranteed thief proof" immobilizer. but then we find that a viral Tik Tok video shows how to with a hairpin and spit we can completely disable it and in 5 seconds and take the car for a drive and access the owners credit card info. and then also the car often bursts into flames while parked and turned off. and we of course find out that this was no "oops" and the corporations involved full-well knew about these issues and hid them to get a bonus. well, that'd certainly be a job for consumer protection laws. but this is a case of "you got what you paid for". there's a place in the market for crank-up windows and basic plain cars without keyfobs and fancy alarms. that isn't wrong, and it definitely isn't "negligence" just because other carmakers pick different places in the market. and the fact that criminals do bad things doesn't change that. and, thank you very much, i don't need consumer protection against that kind of thing. let's start with the lying and cheating corps and work our way up to collusion and price fixing. then let's get onto repair...
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.
  - fargle 3y ago
    none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.
      - fargle 3y ago
        > Did I imply what you want is my business? yes. if that's not true, i retract. what i want is: - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have. - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and "there's nor reason that..." and so on are invalid.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have. I don't think this gets to count as "extra". > - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and so on are invalid. I'm making a general claim about value, nothing personal. Because of that, I don't think it should matter whether wanting it is "nobody's business". But in particular, I'm saying there's no benefit to avoiding an electronic key. We can remove the word "want" entirely. The downsides are large and the implementation cost is a rounding error. This differs from power windows and "fancy alarms".

Do you believe that consumer protections should not exist?

by devmor 3y ago

Do you believe that consumer protections should not exist?

yes, almost. for example, if a company made a car alarm called "SUPER EXTRA SECURE ELITE++ V5" and told me it had a "guaranteed thief proof" immobilizer. but then we find that a viral Tik Tok video shows how to with a hairpin and spit we can completely disable it and in 5 seconds and take the car for a drive and access the owners credit card info. and then also the car often bursts into flames while parked and turned off. and we of course find out that this was no "oops" and the corporations involved full-well knew about these issues and hid them to get a bonus. well, that'd certainly be a job for consumer protection laws. but this is a case of "you got what you paid for". there's a place in the market for crank-up windows and basic plain cars without keyfobs and fancy alarms. that isn't wrong, and it definitely isn't "negligence" just because other carmakers pick different places in the market. and the fact that criminals do bad things doesn't change that. and, thank you very much, i don't need consumer protection against that kind of thing. let's start with the lying and cheating corps and work our way up to collusion and price fixing. then let's get onto repair...

Dylan16807 3y ago
Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.
- fargle 3y ago
  none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.
    - fargle 3y ago
      > Did I imply what you want is my business? yes. if that's not true, i retract. what i want is: - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have. - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and "there's nor reason that..." and so on are invalid.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have. I don't think this gets to count as "extra". > - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and so on are invalid. I'm making a general claim about value, nothing personal. Because of that, I don't think it should matter whether wanting it is "nobody's business". But in particular, I'm saying there's no benefit to avoiding an electronic key. We can remove the word "want" entirely. The downsides are large and the implementation cost is a rounding error. This differs from power windows and "fancy alarms".