| ▲ | gentooflux 5 hours ago |
| 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.” | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 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. | | |
|
|
|
|
