5 ms·

We really need some legislation that outlaws this sort of control over devices we buy. If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in e

We really need some legislation that outlaws this sort of control over devices we buy. If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough. If I buy a tv I shouldn't just have to accept that, now or in the future, the manufacturer will sell advertising on it.

duskdozer 10mo ago
Already done! You agreed to it in the Terms and Conditions - you did read them, right? But yeah I agree with you, there needs to be a way for people to get away from ads without relying on the existence of some benevolent alternate company
- moffkalast 10mo ago
  Despite what the average multinational will have you believe, terms and conditions usually don't hold up in court. If they write some illegal bullshit into it, it's just that, bullshit.
  - duskdozer 10mo ago
    Sure, but that depends on the thing actually being illegal first. Genuine question - how often in practice are terms and conditions successfully challenged? My thought is that companies like that would be able to drain plaintiffs out before it getting that far very often
    - hn8726 10mo ago
      And how often in practice are terms and conditions attempted to be enforced in the first place? No need to challenge them if you can ignore them
      - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
        If ignoring them is your only option, and challenging them would fail, we would expect to see a lack of challenging them. Which we do. Unless there's a solid track record of people consistently challenging them and winning, we can assume, based on bayesian priors, that most people cannot. Which makes sense: court costs money.
  - srmarm 10mo ago
    That may be true but doesn't help if not accepting the terms prevents you from using the device. On a practical level you then at best have a battle to get a third party (the retailer) to give you a refund and most people faced with the option of removing and returning a huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it. It does need some stubborn and tenacious people to make a stand and set a president - perhaps backed by a consumer rights group but it's an uphill battle.
    - exe34 10mo ago
      > huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it. oh I'll fix it with a hammer, or glue a piece of cardboard on it. I paid extra for devices without WiFi when I moved house this year.
- m-schuetz 10mo ago
  Terms and conditions can't just force anything on the buyer. like, you can't enslave people and point at the terms and conditions. It should also be outlawed to enshittify products with terms and conditions.
  - duskdozer 10mo ago
    Yeah, I agree with you on both. I don't see much of a way out though that doesn't basically require dismantling the entire for-profit corporate order.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 10mo ago
  Rossmann Calls it the "EULA Roofie." Why didn't you read the EULA is like asking a roofie victim why didn't they have a chemist analyze their drink first.
pwdisswordfishy 10mo ago
> If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough. No, it should be illegal even when done willingly. Because this worsens the bargaining position of everyone else.
- Freak_NL 10mo ago
  That might sound strange at first, but we've seen enough now to know that this will inevitably mean that a lot of manufacturers will follow this model. I can imagine deals where you get a huge 'rebate' if you permanently enable the ad-feature (the on-screen wizard will blow one of those tiny fuses as its final step, locking the device to that setting). That effectively mandates that the price for the device is its selling price minus the huge rebate, and the whole market will adjust to that. Just ban advertising on those devices.
  - sakompella 10mo ago
    "Telly" [1] is a real 55" TV that is available for free. It is designed to always, constantly be running advertisements. > To reserve a Telly, you must agree to use the device as the main TV in your home, constantly keep it connected to the internet, and regularly watch it. If the company finds that you violate these rules, Telly will ask you to return the TV (and charge a $1,000 fee if you don’t send it back). 1: https://www.theverge.com/televisions/777588/telly-tv-hands-on-ads https://www.theverge.com/televisions/777588/telly-tv-hands-o...
    - venturecruelty 10mo ago
      This reads like a really bad Black Mirror episode. Holy hell.
- nish__ 10mo ago
  Also because just because something is done "willingly" doesn't mean they fully understand that it may not be in their best interest, long-term. This is why drugs are illegal.
- 10mo ago
mcv 10mo ago
Outlawing this specific scenario sounds pretty hard. I can see only two reasonable options: * Ban all advertisements. (I'm all for it, at this point.) * Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads Forcing ads onto stuff we pay money for is not okay. Ads to fund free content is probably unavoidable, but even then, it needs to be clear up front what you're subjecting yourself to. Unexpected ads on devices you don't expect them from, can be confusing and disorienting for many people. For people with schizophrenia, it can clearly be dangerous. And I think this is not just true for smart fridges, but also for those billboards at bus stops that seem stationary at first until they suddenly start to move or talk to you. Ban those please. Or make it clear upfront that they're video. Don't spring this on unsuspecting people.
- duskdozer 10mo ago
  Can we talk about billboards too? As in, giant, increasingly bright ads intended to catch our attention while we're supposed to be carefully operating giant speeding hunks of metal?
- hn8726 10mo ago
  > Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads The other way around — make it clear that the devices are capable of showing ads, and provide instructions on how to opt-in to them (and no cookie-like prompts either)
  - duskdozer 10mo ago
    But..... then nobody will opt in to see the ads.... :(
- dotancohen 10mo ago
  And are only the visible part of the iceberg. The part you don't see is the collection of personal data. That is linked to habits - and to deviations from habits - and that is shared with third parties.
- 10mo ago
hodgesrm 10mo ago
Hmm, maybe there's a simple legislative fix for this problem. Basically vendors that want to make you "rent" devices would have to allow termination for convenience at any time by customer including repayment of any fees paid by the customer for the device. Termination for convenience is a standard term in contracts, hence well-understood by corporate lawyers. The repayment could be reduced using a depreciation schedule so the longer the device is in your hands the less that's returned. I think this would work. The legal machinery is already there. The market would work out the details.
mlrtime 10mo ago
I'm going to keep this sort of on topic and this will not be a popular opinion. No, this does not need legislation. If you don't wants ads on your refrigerator, how about not buying a refrigerator with a screen built in, it's not necessary.
- Arcanum-XIII 10mo ago
  Try to buy a new TV without « smart » features. It’s nearly impossible and all of them will come with some kind of ads on it. I fear it will become impossible to buy a fridge without screen and ad if we don’t find a way to stop this. It’s pure profit for manufacturers and the consumers are fucked since fridge are basic necessities.
  - gentooflux 10mo ago
    That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen
    - fzeroracer 10mo ago
      And what if the manufacturers decide to sue you for disabling the screen? Or decide to simply disable your fridge? This isn't a far out scenario either, the whole right-to-repair movement was based on a company not allowing you to do things with the tractor you bought.
      - gentooflux 10mo ago
        The lawsuit you described in the first question would be without merit. The class action lawsuit stemming from the second would be choc full of merit. If the fridge is in my house and hammers aren't banned yet then that fridge will not be showing me ads.
        fzeroracer 10mo ago
        It would be with merit, because it would be part of the contract you signed when you bought the damn thing. We already live in a world where any attempt to bypass DRM on things you've bought is tantamount to a potential legal battle if they really wanted to be assholes about it. Where you don't really own the things you buy.
ricardonunez 10mo ago
From another posts recently, just the fact some of the greatest minds in our planet are mostly working in advertising and trying to squeeze the most out of consumers just tell us everything. Our society is so rotten. This time of the year it gets even worst.
- nish__ 10mo ago
  Their minds aren't that great if they chose to work in ad-tech, let's be honest.
  - ricardonunez 10mo ago
    Maybe because money, it does that to people. I tend to agree.
  - Telaneo 10mo ago
    Intelligence and empathy aren't necessarily corrolated. I'd imagine many people in the ad industry are very intelligent, and earn a lot of money though choosing to work in that industry, but care very little about what their work is actually doing to people beyond squeezing every cent out of them, or are able to use their smarts to rationalise their work actually being good.
    - nish__ 10mo ago
      Idk I'd argue they are correlated. Lack of empathy leads to eternal suffering. So you'd be pretty stupid to lack empathy.
RataNova 10mo ago
The weird part is that this isn't even a technical problem
agilob 10mo ago
>If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough. If you're advertising me milk on a fridge I paid full price of, send me a full sized sample of the product.
ottah 10mo ago
At this point I'm convinced that ad spending has nothing to do with sales, revenue or any real business principal. It's about power and influence. Advertisers control the culture, news and the public discourse by always paying more than any self funded model would pay. They don't care how much it costs, the control over society is always worth more.

duskdozer 10mo ago

Already done! You agreed to it in the Terms and Conditions - you did read them, right? But yeah I agree with you, there needs to be a way for people to get away from ads without relying on the existence of some benevolent alternate company

moffkalast 10mo ago
Despite what the average multinational will have you believe, terms and conditions usually don't hold up in court. If they write some illegal bullshit into it, it's just that, bullshit.
- duskdozer 10mo ago
  Sure, but that depends on the thing actually being illegal first. Genuine question - how often in practice are terms and conditions successfully challenged? My thought is that companies like that would be able to drain plaintiffs out before it getting that far very often
  - hn8726 10mo ago
    And how often in practice are terms and conditions attempted to be enforced in the first place? No need to challenge them if you can ignore them
    - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
      If ignoring them is your only option, and challenging them would fail, we would expect to see a lack of challenging them. Which we do. Unless there's a solid track record of people consistently challenging them and winning, we can assume, based on bayesian priors, that most people cannot. Which makes sense: court costs money.
- srmarm 10mo ago
  That may be true but doesn't help if not accepting the terms prevents you from using the device. On a practical level you then at best have a battle to get a third party (the retailer) to give you a refund and most people faced with the option of removing and returning a huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it. It does need some stubborn and tenacious people to make a stand and set a president - perhaps backed by a consumer rights group but it's an uphill battle.
  - exe34 10mo ago
    > huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it. oh I'll fix it with a hammer, or glue a piece of cardboard on it. I paid extra for devices without WiFi when I moved house this year.
m-schuetz 10mo ago
Terms and conditions can't just force anything on the buyer. like, you can't enslave people and point at the terms and conditions. It should also be outlawed to enshittify products with terms and conditions.
- duskdozer 10mo ago
  Yeah, I agree with you on both. I don't see much of a way out though that doesn't basically require dismantling the entire for-profit corporate order.
2OEH8eoCRo0 10mo ago
Rossmann Calls it the "EULA Roofie." Why didn't you read the EULA is like asking a roofie victim why didn't they have a chemist analyze their drink first.

pwdisswordfishy 10mo ago

> If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough. No, it should be illegal even when done willingly. Because this worsens the bargaining position of everyone else.

Freak_NL 10mo ago
That might sound strange at first, but we've seen enough now to know that this will inevitably mean that a lot of manufacturers will follow this model. I can imagine deals where you get a huge 'rebate' if you permanently enable the ad-feature (the on-screen wizard will blow one of those tiny fuses as its final step, locking the device to that setting). That effectively mandates that the price for the device is its selling price minus the huge rebate, and the whole market will adjust to that. Just ban advertising on those devices.
- sakompella 10mo ago
  "Telly" [1] is a real 55" TV that is available for free. It is designed to always, constantly be running advertisements. > To reserve a Telly, you must agree to use the device as the main TV in your home, constantly keep it connected to the internet, and regularly watch it. If the company finds that you violate these rules, Telly will ask you to return the TV (and charge a $1,000 fee if you don’t send it back). 1: https://www.theverge.com/televisions/777588/telly-tv-hands-on-ads https://www.theverge.com/televisions/777588/telly-tv-hands-o...
  - venturecruelty 10mo ago
    This reads like a really bad Black Mirror episode. Holy hell.
nish__ 10mo ago
Also because just because something is done "willingly" doesn't mean they fully understand that it may not be in their best interest, long-term. This is why drugs are illegal.
10mo ago

mcv 10mo ago

Outlawing this specific scenario sounds pretty hard. I can see only two reasonable options: * Ban all advertisements. (I'm all for it, at this point.) * Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads Forcing ads onto stuff we pay money for is not okay. Ads to fund free content is probably unavoidable, but even then, it needs to be clear up front what you're subjecting yourself to. Unexpected ads on devices you don't expect them from, can be confusing and disorienting for many people. For people with schizophrenia, it can clearly be dangerous. And I think this is not just true for smart fridges, but also for those billboards at bus stops that seem stationary at first until they suddenly start to move or talk to you. Ban those please. Or make it clear upfront that they're video. Don't spring this on unsuspecting people.

duskdozer 10mo ago
Can we talk about billboards too? As in, giant, increasingly bright ads intended to catch our attention while we're supposed to be carefully operating giant speeding hunks of metal?
hn8726 10mo ago
> Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads The other way around — make it clear that the devices are capable of showing ads, and provide instructions on how to opt-in to them (and no cookie-like prompts either)
- duskdozer 10mo ago
  But..... then nobody will opt in to see the ads.... :(
dotancohen 10mo ago
And are only the visible part of the iceberg. The part you don't see is the collection of personal data. That is linked to habits - and to deviations from habits - and that is shared with third parties.
10mo ago

hodgesrm 10mo ago

Hmm, maybe there's a simple legislative fix for this problem. Basically vendors that want to make you "rent" devices would have to allow termination for convenience at any time by customer including repayment of any fees paid by the customer for the device. Termination for convenience is a standard term in contracts, hence well-understood by corporate lawyers. The repayment could be reduced using a depreciation schedule so the longer the device is in your hands the less that's returned. I think this would work. The legal machinery is already there. The market would work out the details.

mlrtime 10mo ago

I'm going to keep this sort of on topic and this will not be a popular opinion. No, this does not need legislation. If you don't wants ads on your refrigerator, how about not buying a refrigerator with a screen built in, it's not necessary.

Arcanum-XIII 10mo ago
Try to buy a new TV without « smart » features. It’s nearly impossible and all of them will come with some kind of ads on it. I fear it will become impossible to buy a fridge without screen and ad if we don’t find a way to stop this. It’s pure profit for manufacturers and the consumers are fucked since fridge are basic necessities.
- gentooflux 10mo ago
  That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    And what if the manufacturers decide to sue you for disabling the screen? Or decide to simply disable your fridge? This isn't a far out scenario either, the whole right-to-repair movement was based on a company not allowing you to do things with the tractor you bought.
    - gentooflux 10mo ago
      The lawsuit you described in the first question would be without merit. The class action lawsuit stemming from the second would be choc full of merit. If the fridge is in my house and hammers aren't banned yet then that fridge will not be showing me ads.
      - fzeroracer 10mo ago
        It would be with merit, because it would be part of the contract you signed when you bought the damn thing. We already live in a world where any attempt to bypass DRM on things you've bought is tantamount to a potential legal battle if they really wanted to be assholes about it. Where you don't really own the things you buy.

ricardonunez 10mo ago

From another posts recently, just the fact some of the greatest minds in our planet are mostly working in advertising and trying to squeeze the most out of consumers just tell us everything. Our society is so rotten. This time of the year it gets even worst.

nish__ 10mo ago
Their minds aren't that great if they chose to work in ad-tech, let's be honest.
- ricardonunez 10mo ago
  Maybe because money, it does that to people. I tend to agree.
- Telaneo 10mo ago
  Intelligence and empathy aren't necessarily corrolated. I'd imagine many people in the ad industry are very intelligent, and earn a lot of money though choosing to work in that industry, but care very little about what their work is actually doing to people beyond squeezing every cent out of them, or are able to use their smarts to rationalise their work actually being good.
  - nish__ 10mo ago
    Idk I'd argue they are correlated. Lack of empathy leads to eternal suffering. So you'd be pretty stupid to lack empathy.

RataNova 10mo ago

The weird part is that this isn't even a technical problem

agilob 10mo ago

>If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough. If you're advertising me milk on a fridge I paid full price of, send me a full sized sample of the product.

ottah 10mo ago

At this point I'm convinced that ad spending has nothing to do with sales, revenue or any real business principal. It's about power and influence. Advertisers control the culture, news and the public discourse by always paying more than any self funded model would pay. They don't care how much it costs, the control over society is always worth more.