| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | dns_snek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. Let's analyze that. You've written 2 comments[1] that mention him, making these same disparaging claims with no evidence whilst taking every opportunity to insult those of us who have a positive view of him. 1. You accused him of spreading misinformation on the topic of Mozilla changing their ToS to include unambiguous language that assigned them a license to any information we upload or enter through Firefox. Mozilla later responded with weasel language amounting to "nuh uh, that's not what it means" until they eventually changed those terms. All of this is documented on Rossmann's wiki. [2] Being gullible enough to believe every illogical explanation that a corporate PR department provides is not a virtue of a free thinker you're making it out to be. 2. You accused him of spreading misinformation on the topic of Brother adding consumer-hostile features, despite there being many independent sources predating his video complaining about the same issue across Reddit, HN, Github, and multiple independent forums. Again, this is documented on his wiki. [3] 3. And this is the most damning — You accused him of engaging in bad faith and "moving the goalposts" in relation to the self-service repair program. His first impression [4] was that the program is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. That's not moving the goalposts, that's highlighting the fact that the goalposts have not been met. Your dishonest portrayal paints him as someone who's incapable of praise and only looks for negativity, when in fact he's gives credit where credit is due. He praised Apple when they first introduced the Independent Repair Provider Program [5], before that program ultimately turned out to be a sham. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://consumerrights.wiki/Mozilla_introduces_TOS_to_Firefo... [3] https://consumerrights.wiki/Brother_printers_causing_issues_... [4] https://youtu.be/agG108sxkyo?t=803 [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tRq5niOM7Q | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tempodox a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you think it's ok for a company … They said nothing of the sort. You seem to have a penchant for jumping to conclusions. Likewise with conflating a country with a bunch of companies. Cool down, your outrage seems to cloud your thinking. | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > he's the type of influencer who seems to lure in people who let their guard down and stop thinking critically for themselves Have I been lured into it and let my guard down? I don't think so, since I am quite capable of critical thinking. It's thus condescending. > bringing up a non-American company as the lone supporting example I've done no such thing, there are countless examples in the post. I really fail to see how that's jumping to conclusions. I'd give you that I am a bit worked up because I am very exposed, so maybe I could have phrased my answer better. |
| |
| ▲ | IAmBroom a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | fidotron a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And his direct example, Reason, is Swedish! |
| |
| ▲ | gchamonlive a day ago | parent [-] | | That's what prompted the rest of the research, doesn't need to be American the point stands. | | |
| ▲ | fidotron a day ago | parent [-] | | So you will continue to buy Swedish? | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | So the poor innocent Swedes would have acted completely honourably without the US as an example. Utter nonsense. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | raffael_de a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Framework, Pebble, DynaVap, ... those companies deserve to be boycotted just because the are US American? |
|
| ▲ | grues-dinner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| BMW also bravely took the PR hit of going first for renting bits of the car to you (like the heated seats). |
|
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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). |
| |
