5 ms·

Sure, but there's a power disparity here. I think the clearest example is smart TVs where there have been examples of consumers buying a TV, and then having ads

Sure, but there's a power disparity here. I think the clearest example is smart TVs where there have been examples of consumers buying a TV, and then having ads retroactively added to the product a year later. There's not much a consumer could to avoid that. It's our regulatory environment allowing that.

j_w 7mo ago
You don't need a TV. If there are only smart TVs then simply don't purchase one. Most consumers are unwilling to take an option that they perceive as inconveniencing them more than getting screwed by the company inconveniences them.
- LtWorf 7mo ago
  Go to a shop and try to find a non smart tv.
  - kortilla 7mo ago
    “You don’t need a TV”
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- hnlmorg 7mo ago
  Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience. The reality is that companies know they can get away with crap because they all get away with crap. And because they all do it, consumers are powerless. This is why regulation isn’t a bad the thing that many HNers seem to recoil at. The real problem with regulation is when it’s defined by lobbyists rather than consumer groups. But even then, it’s really no different to the status quo where businesses are never held accountable.
  - j_w 7mo ago
    If somebody "needs" a TV then they might "need" some hobbies. A disturbing proportion of my family spend more than half of their free time watching television (typically while doom scrolling tiktok). They don't "need" TVs - they need to find interests.
    - Cpoll 7mo ago
      Sure, but you're just choosing hobbies for people. TVs are just one example here. If your hobby is 3D printing, you might've gotten screwed by Autodesk's subscription changes.
      - nicoburns 7mo ago
        Yeah, and it's not just non-essentials. You could easily get screwed by your food production supply chain, or your housing provider.
      - j_w 7mo ago
        TV can be a hobby, but hobbies typically have actual engagement from the hobbyist. There are a lot of people whom watching television/movies is a real hobby, and for those people you can tell that's the case. In my experience for most people it's strictly a time wasting/filling/background noise activity. If you are spending a considerable amount of time watching television to time waste then you probably should try and find more fulfilling activities. This is not prescriptive of what those would be.
        hnlmorg 7mo ago
        When I was in my 20s I used to hold this belief as well. And as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised those opinions weren’t because TV viewers were wasting their lives, it was because there was so much I wanted to do with my time that I was scared of wasting my life. I was actually getting angry because I couldn’t pack everything I wanted to do in a day. Needless to say, I now focus on my own free time rather than thinking about how others should spend theirs. Also, now I’m in my 40s, I treasure the couple of hours I spend a week watching TV with my kids. We play games, sports and such like too. But sometimes it’s nice to cuddle on the sofa and share an experience in comfort.
- Eisenstein 7mo ago
  Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them.
  - j_w 7mo ago
    I've dropped many things in the past because of issues with the company/service. Amazon Prime, every single streaming service, I've been car free for over 3 years, and there are more. Are there some things I would struggle with if suddenly there were issues? Sure. I had to significantly increase my internet spend because of the (much) cheaper option going to complete shit. I require the internet for my career but unless the entire world collapses I doubt I'll run into any true blocker that would prevent me from using it for work. Most people are just afraid to change their lives substantively. I am too, but I'm also willing to do it for causes I believe in.
    - Eisenstein 7mo ago
      I think you underestimate the meaning of the word 'inconvenience'. Hot water is a convenience. My point is that your list is one list which you are making, but someone else could look at your life and make a different list. Your argument only goes so far you can extend into your own life. If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do. This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
      - j_w 7mo ago
        Your original reply was: > Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them. If you didn't expect me to be introspective to MYSELF then why even bother asking? Of course my list is personal. While it is personal, it also can apply to others. The reality is that most people are completely unwilling to inconvenience themselves. Go without hot water? Okay, sure. I take cold showers, they are better for your skin. I wash my clothes with cold water. The only thing I use hot water for is dishes. I think that might be a bit weird, but I think dish soap is anti bacterial so it's probably not an issue? Now you can reply to this saying: "well YOU can do that but other people will feel differently." No shit. But most of the world goes without hot water so who cares. > If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do. Most people don't actually care about TV in their life - they just have never thought for a minute to consider the reality of not having one. > This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are. Not sure how this is relevant. I'm all for consumer protection. But the most apt way to protect yourself is to vote: first for politicians, and then with your wallet.
- drnick1 7mo ago
  The trick is to use the TV as a monitor and not connect it to the Internet.
  - j_w 7mo ago
    This is what I do with the smart TV that I was given after a relative was tired of it freezing up/apps crashing. Haven't had any issues.
  - rbanffy 7mo ago
    I remember some brand was caught connecting to nearby TVs of the same brand to send telemetry to their corporate masters through the neighbour’s internet connected TV. Not sure how far they went with downloading new firmware.
bigstrat2003 7mo ago
Yeah that is definitely the kind of thing we need regulation to address. In the market, the only power you have is to purchase or not. It ruins the free market's ability to function if the company you buy something from can remotely vandalize it after your purchase.
rbanffy 7mo ago
And this is even worse than with computers where you can, with some training, remove Windows and install a less user-hostile operating system. With a TV, while sometimes possible, most people are not sufficiently proficient in tge dark arts required to get rid of the native OS or to subvert it to your will against the wishes of its corporate master.
gathered 7mo ago
On top of that, the TV manufacturers subsidize the cost of their own TVs by shoving as much adware as possible and having it pay for the cost of the hardware. "Smart" TVs will almost always be cheaper than equivalent dumb TVs because of this reason, which forces many consumers' hands. I don't think there's any way to avoid this other than regulation, which likely won't happen because the system moves too slow to keep up.
- kelvinjps10 7mo ago
  the solution to this it's to just never enable wifi on the tv and just use it with your box, I for example use a cheap android tv box and my regular computer. The same with kindle I don't buy books from amazon, and just use calibre.
windward 7mo ago
Not to mention Windows 10 being sold as the last version

j_w 7mo ago

You don't need a TV. If there are only smart TVs then simply don't purchase one. Most consumers are unwilling to take an option that they perceive as inconveniencing them more than getting screwed by the company inconveniences them.

LtWorf 7mo ago
Go to a shop and try to find a non smart tv.
- kortilla 7mo ago
  “You don’t need a TV”
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
hnlmorg 7mo ago
Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience. The reality is that companies know they can get away with crap because they all get away with crap. And because they all do it, consumers are powerless. This is why regulation isn’t a bad the thing that many HNers seem to recoil at. The real problem with regulation is when it’s defined by lobbyists rather than consumer groups. But even then, it’s really no different to the status quo where businesses are never held accountable.
- j_w 7mo ago
  If somebody "needs" a TV then they might "need" some hobbies. A disturbing proportion of my family spend more than half of their free time watching television (typically while doom scrolling tiktok). They don't "need" TVs - they need to find interests.
  - Cpoll 7mo ago
    Sure, but you're just choosing hobbies for people. TVs are just one example here. If your hobby is 3D printing, you might've gotten screwed by Autodesk's subscription changes.
    - nicoburns 7mo ago
      Yeah, and it's not just non-essentials. You could easily get screwed by your food production supply chain, or your housing provider.
    - j_w 7mo ago
      TV can be a hobby, but hobbies typically have actual engagement from the hobbyist. There are a lot of people whom watching television/movies is a real hobby, and for those people you can tell that's the case. In my experience for most people it's strictly a time wasting/filling/background noise activity. If you are spending a considerable amount of time watching television to time waste then you probably should try and find more fulfilling activities. This is not prescriptive of what those would be.
      - hnlmorg 7mo ago
        When I was in my 20s I used to hold this belief as well. And as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised those opinions weren’t because TV viewers were wasting their lives, it was because there was so much I wanted to do with my time that I was scared of wasting my life. I was actually getting angry because I couldn’t pack everything I wanted to do in a day. Needless to say, I now focus on my own free time rather than thinking about how others should spend theirs. Also, now I’m in my 40s, I treasure the couple of hours I spend a week watching TV with my kids. We play games, sports and such like too. But sometimes it’s nice to cuddle on the sofa and share an experience in comfort.
Eisenstein 7mo ago
Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them.
- j_w 7mo ago
  I've dropped many things in the past because of issues with the company/service. Amazon Prime, every single streaming service, I've been car free for over 3 years, and there are more. Are there some things I would struggle with if suddenly there were issues? Sure. I had to significantly increase my internet spend because of the (much) cheaper option going to complete shit. I require the internet for my career but unless the entire world collapses I doubt I'll run into any true blocker that would prevent me from using it for work. Most people are just afraid to change their lives substantively. I am too, but I'm also willing to do it for causes I believe in.
  - Eisenstein 7mo ago
    I think you underestimate the meaning of the word 'inconvenience'. Hot water is a convenience. My point is that your list is one list which you are making, but someone else could look at your life and make a different list. Your argument only goes so far you can extend into your own life. If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do. This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
    - j_w 7mo ago
      Your original reply was: > Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them. If you didn't expect me to be introspective to MYSELF then why even bother asking? Of course my list is personal. While it is personal, it also can apply to others. The reality is that most people are completely unwilling to inconvenience themselves. Go without hot water? Okay, sure. I take cold showers, they are better for your skin. I wash my clothes with cold water. The only thing I use hot water for is dishes. I think that might be a bit weird, but I think dish soap is anti bacterial so it's probably not an issue? Now you can reply to this saying: "well YOU can do that but other people will feel differently." No shit. But most of the world goes without hot water so who cares. > If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do. Most people don't actually care about TV in their life - they just have never thought for a minute to consider the reality of not having one. > This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are. Not sure how this is relevant. I'm all for consumer protection. But the most apt way to protect yourself is to vote: first for politicians, and then with your wallet.
drnick1 7mo ago
The trick is to use the TV as a monitor and not connect it to the Internet.
- j_w 7mo ago
  This is what I do with the smart TV that I was given after a relative was tired of it freezing up/apps crashing. Haven't had any issues.
- rbanffy 7mo ago
  I remember some brand was caught connecting to nearby TVs of the same brand to send telemetry to their corporate masters through the neighbour’s internet connected TV. Not sure how far they went with downloading new firmware.

bigstrat2003 7mo ago

Yeah that is definitely the kind of thing we need regulation to address. In the market, the only power you have is to purchase or not. It ruins the free market's ability to function if the company you buy something from can remotely vandalize it after your purchase.

rbanffy 7mo ago

And this is even worse than with computers where you can, with some training, remove Windows and install a less user-hostile operating system. With a TV, while sometimes possible, most people are not sufficiently proficient in tge dark arts required to get rid of the native OS or to subvert it to your will against the wishes of its corporate master.

gathered 7mo ago

On top of that, the TV manufacturers subsidize the cost of their own TVs by shoving as much adware as possible and having it pay for the cost of the hardware. "Smart" TVs will almost always be cheaper than equivalent dumb TVs because of this reason, which forces many consumers' hands. I don't think there's any way to avoid this other than regulation, which likely won't happen because the system moves too slow to keep up.

kelvinjps10 7mo ago
the solution to this it's to just never enable wifi on the tv and just use it with your box, I for example use a cheap android tv box and my regular computer. The same with kindle I don't buy books from amazon, and just use calibre.

windward 7mo ago

Not to mention Windows 10 being sold as the last version