Remix.run Logo
jamesbelchamber 9 hours ago

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.

agilob 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>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.

pwdisswordfishy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"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-o...

nish__ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

ricardonunez 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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__ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Their minds aren't that great if they chose to work in ad-tech, let's be honest.

hodgesrm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

duskdozer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

m-schuetz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

moffkalast 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

srmarm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

duskdozer 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

mcv 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

hn8726 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

But..... then nobody will opt in to see the ads.... :(

duskdozer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

RataNova 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

mlrtime 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

creata 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People said the same thing about cars. People said the same thing about smart TVs. Do you know any cars currently being manufactured that respect your privacy?

https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/cate...

jazzyjackson 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mazda is alright. iirc the CEO has expressed disinterest in touchscreens and distractions from driving

ohhellnawman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

Arcanum-XIII 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

scythe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My last two televisions both came from the "Sceptre" line at Walmart which seemed to be the last holdout of non-smart TVs. I don't know if they're still holding the line; the model I checked just now says it has "V-chip" but doesn't say anything about a "smart TV" operating system or any of that nonsense. It's not very well-advertised but it's still around. I don't know of any way to find a normal TV that isn't from Walmart or a thrift store, though.

gentooflux 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen

Levitz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No for everybody it won't. Not to even mention the waste.

gentooflux 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No one can force you to watch ads, they're your eyeballs. There will always be a solution to this problem; if it's in your domicile then no one can stop you from spending time coming up with solutions

s0sa 3 hours ago | parent [-]

“Ma’am we’re not going to do anything about that flasher. No one can force you to look at him, they're your eyeballs.”

gentooflux 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"Officer, take that ugly man away, we don't want to have to look at him"

fzeroracer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

randerson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've long wondered what would happen if, say, NYT sued me for blocking their many ads (despite being a paying subscriber). My argument would be that I'd never click on the ads anyway out of principle, so the ad blocker is just me delegating the ignoring of ads that I would've done myself regardless. Also that if I couldn't turn off ads, I wouldn't have subscribed and they'd make even less revenue.

That said, I doubt these companies would sue because of the risk of setting a precedent in favor of the consumer. Scary legal letters (e.g. cease & desist letters) perhaps. But given enough customers, at least one will have the resources to hire a good lawyer and fight it all the way to court.

gentooflux 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

duskdozer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It might also not be keeping your food cold, if they build it so that a screen failure bricks the thing

gentooflux 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If a company intentionally spoiled my food out of spite I would sue them. If they did it to all of their customers that becomes class action. They cannot force their customers into a contract which would include allowing them to spoil your food out of spite, that contract would not be legally binding.

fzeroracer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

gentooflux 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Drm is one thing, taping construction paper over a screen is another. That contract would be unenforceable. Shit is dystopian lately, but you're being hyperbolic.

whynotmaybe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And what about ads on gas pump?

In many places, you can't legally buy gas outside of a gas pump that have a strong tendency to show more and more ads.

gentooflux 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't own the gas pump, and it isn't in your house.

nish__ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah, we don't want these leeches to get a chance to flood the market driving out competitors.

MangoToupe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This shows an irrational level of faith in the market