| ▲ | josho 18 hours ago |
| The problem is that consumers are not savvy. They go to the store, and compare TVs based on features presented. Colors, refresh rate, size, etc. Its only when they get home (and likely not even right away) that they discover their TV is spying on them and serving ads. This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required. Ideally, something that protects our privacy. But, minimally something like a required 'nutrition label' on any product that sends our data off device. |
|
| ▲ | janalsncm 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV. So it’s not a question of being savvy. As a consumer you can’t know what a company will choose to do in the future. The lawsuit seems to be about using ACR, not the presence of ads. |
| |
| ▲ | josephg 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV. To the parent commenters' point, this is a perfect example of a situation where governments should be stepping in. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you do not accept, they brick your TV. That ought to be a slam dunk win in court. Especially since they probably won't show up to my local small claims court and I'll just send them the judgement. | |
| ▲ | hobobaggins 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The thing that prevents a TV mfg from bricking your device is that they'd be instantly (and successfully) sued. In fact, there have already been many such class actions, ie with printer inks. The downside is that it's sometimes easier and cheaper to just pay off the class and keep doing it. |
|
|
| ▲ | jMyles 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The problem is that consumers are not savvy... > ...This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required. Isn't this precisely the dynamic which causes governments to have an interest in ensuring that consumers don't become savvy? |
|
| ▲ | wmf 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| a required 'nutrition label' This didn't work for GDPR cookie warnings. |
| |
| ▲ | josephg 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | True. But it does work for food safety, and to help curb underage drinking and smoking, to stop lousy restaurants from serving unsafe food and for lots of other stuff we take for granted. Top down governance isn't a silver bullet, but it has its place in a functioning society. |
|
|
| ▲ | IshKebab 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I wouldn't say they aren't savvy. Many aren't, but also I don't blame them. Often you can buy a perfectly reasonable device and then they ad spying and adverts after you bought it. Most reviewers also don't talk about this stuff, and there are no standards for any of it (unlike e.g. energy consumption). I agree more legislation is required. |
| |
| ▲ | squeaky-clean 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I went with Philips Hue smart lighting specifically because it could work without an account or any internet access for the bulbs or hub. Guess what became required this year? At least it seems I can still use them offline if I don't use the official app. But the official app is now just a popup requiring me to create an account. I'm not sure if I could add new lights using third party apps. Not like I'm ever buying a Hue product again though. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yep, the store TV is in demo mode, then that first firmware update at home it changes it completely. | | |
|
