Remix.run Logo
nyeah 18 hours ago

It's always amazing how many people plop anti-consumer comments out here. Like, of course you bastards deserve to be served ads on your own TV that you just paid $800 for. Because why? Because ... the market is wise, and "the market" is screwing us, so ... we must ... deserve to be screwed?

Whatever is being offered to us must be the best deal we can get, because ... it's being offered to us?

What drives this sentiment? Is it Stockholm Syndrome?

anon7000 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. The free market has very little recourse when companies basically all start doing the same thing, and more or less don’t tell you about it. You certainly don’t see “takes a screenshot of your TV every 2s and uploads it for us to analyze” plastered all over the boxes! I guess the idea is the consumer will be omniscient and that a company will come along offering a privacy protecting alternative… but those incentives just doooo not work!

Seriously, totally deranged to think the “free market” is capable of protecting humans against widespread nefarious behavior from colluding actors with vast amounts of money and power.

globular-toast 9 hours ago | parent [-]

A free market would be great and perfectly capable of serving the public. The problem is free market is a theoretical concept and markets like electronics are nowhere near free. Collusion is something that happens in an oligopoly. The fact many markets degenerate into oligopolies and monopolies is why we need government. 30 years ago I feel like people understood this. Now it seems everyone thinks they know what free market means just because they heard the term one time.

nyeah 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

eimrine 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I like this branch of discussion and I want it to keep growing. What has to happen to make an electronics market free? Is the situation about spyware TV/cars can not be improved in any kind of Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist world without the Government? Is bad government worse for the electronics market than absence of any governments?

rthrfrd 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All unregulated free market arguments rely on low/no barriers to entry. There are very few markets where this is true in reality.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
globular-toast 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Some things like semiconductor fabrication will have huge barriers to entry for the foreseeable future due to being massively capital intensive and involving lots of trade secrets etc. We can't really do much about this.

What we (ie. the government) can do is ensure no entities own the entire supply chain, so you can't run a fab and also market finished consumer goods. That way, manufacture of consumer goods (including the software) from the raw fabricated parts gets a much lower barrier to entry.

We can also force consumer manufacturers to advertise all "features" that we deem to be important. We already do things like energy ratings, why not privacy ratings too? The more information consumers have the better.

Make no mistake, any capital intensive industry like electronics will degenerate into an oligopoly without government, or you can dream of a day where everyone can print semiconductor wafers at home.

stevage 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's driven by the fact that many of these people work for companies doing similar things, and this is how they resolve the cognitive dissonance. Otherwise they'd have to accept that their work is unethical.

nyeah an hour ago | parent [-]

I've wondered about cognitive dissonance. Another "cog diss" possibility is, maybe I have a strong aversion to admitting that I'm getting screwed. Maybe I can relieve those feelings by arguing publicly that I'm not getting screwed. Or that it's "inevitable" for me to be screwed.

I don't know. It's one guess among many.

benced 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the companies are selling technology to us cheaper than cost in exchange for this? I do think they should be required to offer a revenue-neutral way to turn off ads but it would cost several hundred dollars and only me & 5 other weirdos on this website would buy it.

You can look at Vizio's quarterly statements before Walmart bought them: their devices were margin negative and "Platform+" (ads) made up for it: https://investors.vizio.com/financials/quarterly-results/def...

nyeah 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That may be a good point. But I don't think it's an answer to my question.

My question was, Why do people get so passionate about being screwed? Say consumers really are receiving a $300 discount in exchange for being forced to watch say 30 hours of ads. Is that really such a fantastic opportunity that I'm going to go cheer for it publicly, or claim it's consumers' fault, or it should be mandatory, or we must just accept it because (whatever)?

itopaloglu83 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We all know that they would artificially increase the price of those models and exclude tons of features to punish users and say it’s not profitable.

They should not be allowed to track user at all as a hardware manufacturer, let the users purchase the tracking software themselves and get a rebate back.

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

I don't like ACR at all.. but after reading all the raging about ads on TVs I thought they would be terrible. Then I got one recently - the ads are literally just links to watch movies & TV series I might be interested in, on my TV? Like yes I do want my TV to show me some things I might be interested in watching, the same way Youtube does. I don't like the increasing privacy violations like ACR being used to tune those "ads", but seeing recommendations on my TV is a feature I like..

Heck if I had strong guarantees that the data generated by ACR was used only to tune recommendations/ads using an anonymous advertising ID like IDFA and not linked to any personally identifying information, I would want that too. But sadly there is no privacy and no way of ensuring that now.

lodovic 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Not everyone feels like that. Yesterday the app of my tv provider on my Samsung TV home screen suddenly shows a Prime icon in its place, prompting to install the app if you use muscle memory to control the TV. I am unable to remove this annoying ad. I really really hate ads and will go to great lengths to avoid seeing any in my private home. So I see this as an invasion of my privacy. Not buying Samsung anymore.

moooo99 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel this is a generally strange situation. TVs seem to be pretty much the only tech that is somehow inflation proof, and that is largely due to the surveillance capitalist approach they come with.

I am a strong privacy advocate, but I also believe in customers choice. Hence, the primary issue I have with this technology is not its existence, but the lack of transparency in the pricing and the inability to truly properly opt out of this data collection.

At some point in the past year, I‘ve read someone suggest a „privacy label“ for electronics, akin to the energy efficiency labels that exist around the world. The manufacturers should be forced to disclose the extend of the data collection as well as the purpose and the ability to opt out on the product packaging, before the customer makes the purchase

savanaly 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can not like something without wanting to make it illegal to do it. Simple as that. My preferences aren't necessarily someone else's preferences.

hdgvhicv 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

HN tell me people want adverts, they are for my benefit so I can benefit from them.

wmf 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

HN is a haven for principled libertarians but I don't see many such comments in this thread.