4 ms·

So... they wrote American but they are confusing anti-consumer tactics with an entire country, even though they were not going for that. Just want to point out

So... they wrote American but they are confusing anti-consumer tactics with an entire country, even though they were not going for that. Just want to point out: * Samsung has been accused of releasing software updates that degrade performance, forcing you to buy newer devices - Samsung is not American * Brother - Japanese printer maker, I LOVE their printers mind you, but they've released firmware upgrades that prevent or degrade compatibility with third party ink cartridges * Epson - Also Japanese, also have owned some of their printers, same thing with third party ink cartridges. I'm sure there's many more companies, not from the US who do equally if not worse evils with software / hardware. What the author is after isn't American products, just anti-consumerism, which can be impossible to predict mind you. Anyone of any country can do it.

fidotron 1y ago
And his direct example, Reason, is Swedish!
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  That's what prompted the rest of the research, doesn't need to be American the point stands.
  - fidotron 1y ago
    So you will continue to buy Swedish?
    - gchamonlive 1y ago
      Yes. Is that hypocrisy? No, because I'm not advocating for any extreme form of consuming veganism. I'm advocating for a message. If the message is strong and clear that companies can't employ anti-consumer practices without consequences, then maybe other companies like Reason that operates outside the US will think twice before doing it, even if the laws under which they operate would allow them to. Why target American products then? It's not accidental. US is by far the largest market and as such has the responsibility to set an example. If we change the example being set that will likely ripple to other markets.
      - fidotron 1y ago
        The single least logical statement I have ever seen on this forum. > Is that hypocrisy? No It's not hypocrisy, it's illogical, and even immoral. You saw something being done by group A and decided you want to punish group B for it.
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        My arguments are in my post. I've described exactly the type of behavior from the american market that enables this happening there and sets an example for the rest of the world. It's not punish group B for something done by group A, is punishing group B for leading group A with a terrible example. What's illogical and immoral is to antagonize the very people that consumes your product.
        fidotron 1y ago
        So the poor innocent Swedes would have acted completely honourably without the US as an example. Utter nonsense.
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        sure
Aurornis 1y ago
When I reached the part about watching a lot of Louis Rossmann videos it made more sense. I have to be careful with my words because there are a lot of Louis Rossmann fans on HN. Rossmann is a very charismatic influencer who speaks with a confident and soothing tone and positions himself as someone just telling the facts for the benefits of his viewers. I've written before about how he tends to jump to conclusions, launch videos based on rumors, ignore facts that contradict juicy controversies, and stir the pot while positioning himself as the only rational source for a subject. Note that I'm not saying Louis Rossmann is always wrong, nor that I disagree with him on everything, nor that I dislike the good things he does, nor any of the other numerous straw-man arguments that people come up with when you bring up issues with his influencer activity. However, he's the type of influencer who seems to lure in people who let their guard down and stop thinking critically for themselves, which opens the door to articles like this one where the conclusion isn't entirely rational but it feels rational after watching Louis Rossmann talk about it for hours and hours. Conflating America, the country, with American companies, ignoring all of the non-American companies doing the same practices, and then bringing up a non-American company as the lone supporting example is all consistent with the dynamic I'm describing. The conclusion is assumed to be correct, because it's correct in the world of Louis Rossmann, but putting it to words outside of the YouTube influencer bubble falls apart on any critical thinking.
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    > If you think it's ok for a company to sell you a product and after purchase hide some functionalities behind a subscription, you not only a victim anymore, but a part of the problem. That is not at all a valid reduction of the complaints you are responding to. It's not even close. 30-yd penalty for moving the goalposts.
    - gchamonlive 1y ago
      This isn't a game.
grues-dinner 1y ago
BMW also bravely took the PR hit of going first for renting bits of the car to you (like the heated seats).
gchamonlive 1y ago
You can go about tackling consumerism in many ways. I believe the way that makes the most sense is to start with the largest market. Make it better there, it'll set an example for the rest of the world. Because Americans pride themselves in being the leaders of the free world. Well, that leadership comes with responsibilities, and while yes anti-consumer practices aren't exclusive to US companies, by not being able to care less about their consumers the US is setting a terrible precedent, which we need to address as consumers.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    thanks, you too
raffael_de 1y ago
Framework, Pebble, DynaVap, ... those companies deserve to be boycotted just because the are US American?
insane_dreamer 1y ago
No, it's not about the companies, it's about the government that allows those companies to behave the way they do. Which is why the article is about the US and not about Walmart or Dow Chemical. Companies will almost always look for ways to extract maximum profit even if it comes at the expense of others' wellbeing. So it is up to government to protect its citizens by regulations that prevent, for example, polluting water supplies, the air we breathe, etc., or from taking advantage of consumers, defrauding them, etc. If government decides to roll back many of those regulations (like gutting the CFPB), then companies are free to engage in those destructive practices. You can blame the companies, sure -- but mostly I blame the government (and those who voted for that government) because it's their job to keep companies in check, and instead of doing that, they're in bed with the companies, and even directly profiting from them (also known as corruption, which oligarchies do very well).
- CommenterPerson 1y ago
  Well said!

fidotron 1y ago

And his direct example, Reason, is Swedish!

gchamonlive 1y ago
That's what prompted the rest of the research, doesn't need to be American the point stands.
- fidotron 1y ago
  So you will continue to buy Swedish?
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    Yes. Is that hypocrisy? No, because I'm not advocating for any extreme form of consuming veganism. I'm advocating for a message. If the message is strong and clear that companies can't employ anti-consumer practices without consequences, then maybe other companies like Reason that operates outside the US will think twice before doing it, even if the laws under which they operate would allow them to. Why target American products then? It's not accidental. US is by far the largest market and as such has the responsibility to set an example. If we change the example being set that will likely ripple to other markets.
    - fidotron 1y ago
      The single least logical statement I have ever seen on this forum. > Is that hypocrisy? No It's not hypocrisy, it's illogical, and even immoral. You saw something being done by group A and decided you want to punish group B for it.
      - gchamonlive 1y ago
        My arguments are in my post. I've described exactly the type of behavior from the american market that enables this happening there and sets an example for the rest of the world. It's not punish group B for something done by group A, is punishing group B for leading group A with a terrible example. What's illogical and immoral is to antagonize the very people that consumes your product.
        fidotron 1y ago
        So the poor innocent Swedes would have acted completely honourably without the US as an example. Utter nonsense.
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        sure

Aurornis 1y ago

When I reached the part about watching a lot of Louis Rossmann videos it made more sense. I have to be careful with my words because there are a lot of Louis Rossmann fans on HN. Rossmann is a very charismatic influencer who speaks with a confident and soothing tone and positions himself as someone just telling the facts for the benefits of his viewers. I've written before about how he tends to jump to conclusions, launch videos based on rumors, ignore facts that contradict juicy controversies, and stir the pot while positioning himself as the only rational source for a subject. Note that I'm not saying Louis Rossmann is always wrong, nor that I disagree with him on everything, nor that I dislike the good things he does, nor any of the other numerous straw-man arguments that people come up with when you bring up issues with his influencer activity. However, he's the type of influencer who seems to lure in people who let their guard down and stop thinking critically for themselves, which opens the door to articles like this one where the conclusion isn't entirely rational but it feels rational after watching Louis Rossmann talk about it for hours and hours. Conflating America, the country, with American companies, ignoring all of the non-American companies doing the same practices, and then bringing up a non-American company as the lone supporting example is all consistent with the dynamic I'm describing. The conclusion is assumed to be correct, because it's correct in the world of Louis Rossmann, but putting it to words outside of the YouTube influencer bubble falls apart on any critical thinking.

gchamonlive 1y ago
[flagged]
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  > If you think it's ok for a company to sell you a product and after purchase hide some functionalities behind a subscription, you not only a victim anymore, but a part of the problem. That is not at all a valid reduction of the complaints you are responding to. It's not even close. 30-yd penalty for moving the goalposts.
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    This isn't a game.

grues-dinner 1y ago

BMW also bravely took the PR hit of going first for renting bits of the car to you (like the heated seats).

gchamonlive 1y ago

You can go about tackling consumerism in many ways. I believe the way that makes the most sense is to start with the largest market. Make it better there, it'll set an example for the rest of the world. Because Americans pride themselves in being the leaders of the free world. Well, that leadership comes with responsibilities, and while yes anti-consumer practices aren't exclusive to US companies, by not being able to care less about their consumers the US is setting a terrible precedent, which we need to address as consumers.

red-iron-pine 1y ago
[flagged]
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  thanks, you too

raffael_de 1y ago

Framework, Pebble, DynaVap, ... those companies deserve to be boycotted just because the are US American?

insane_dreamer 1y ago

No, it's not about the companies, it's about the government that allows those companies to behave the way they do. Which is why the article is about the US and not about Walmart or Dow Chemical. Companies will almost always look for ways to extract maximum profit even if it comes at the expense of others' wellbeing. So it is up to government to protect its citizens by regulations that prevent, for example, polluting water supplies, the air we breathe, etc., or from taking advantage of consumers, defrauding them, etc. If government decides to roll back many of those regulations (like gutting the CFPB), then companies are free to engage in those destructive practices. You can blame the companies, sure -- but mostly I blame the government (and those who voted for that government) because it's their job to keep companies in check, and instead of doing that, they're in bed with the companies, and even directly profiting from them (also known as corruption, which oligarchies do very well).

CommenterPerson 1y ago
Well said!