They shouldn't be able to collect it in the first place. The big companies have 10 page agreements that say they "value" your privacy and that they don't sell your data to third parties. They do value it, highly. And they don't sell it--they just hoard it, mine it, and sell increasingly accurate targeting. Why would they give it up? I mean, besides coughing it up with little objection to national security letters.

This would kill some middling parties but wouldn't do mich.

I worked for a major adtech company that bought zero third party data.

There's enough in the bidrequests.

And we had nothing on Meta or Google's ecosystems.

100% agree. There are a million reasons people come up with for why this will never happen, but pardon me if I want to see us try first and then fix the mistakes we made after. Right now we're living in one big dystopian mistake that needs immediate pushback.

Look at the outrage from US tech bros when the EU passed a law saying that you only had to tell people you were going to do this. Imagine how preventing it would be received.

The video is 2 hours long. A summary is not a bad thing

Which is published on a video streaming website run by one of the biggest tracking and data collection companies, which is used to pay for the creation of the video (in addition to ads embedded in the video itself).

The point is: which brands still respect user privacy? If I were to buy a new TV today, which brands-models should I prioritize? Also, are there brands-models that in which it is possible to sideload a different OS like with mobile phones (LineageOS, GrapheneOS, etc.)

The bottom of the line TVs are basically commoditized and are sold at a loss. There's few tv manufacturers and they mostly compete on price, only the top of the line models have pricing power and only for 6-24 months for new models. A supermajority of consumers don't care if they're tracked all the time and a large fraction don't mind ads everywhere either (they're used to it).

A new display plant costs multiple billions.

We're in a recession, in all but official numbers (which are decreasingly credible by the day). Big companies weather a recession and use it to ransack countries, becsuse smaller/mid-size companies are struggling to do the bare minimum, outright shut down, or cannot start up to begin with.

There's a lot of moving parts that makes it really hard for ethical newcomers to disrupt in these current times. And that's just one angle.

A consumer respecting brand sells products. A Consumer selling brand sells consumers so they can be profiled, analysed for weaknesses and exploited economically in the name of Surveillance Capitalism

I suspect because it's hard to differentiate between ones that actually respect the consumer vs ones that only say so, but are actually lying to your face.

That and not respecting the consumer is more profitable in the short term (only!), which means more marketing money, buying out other brands, lobbying to increase the barrier for entry, et cetera.

Machiavelli's flexibility: evil has more options to achieve its goals than good, and therefore it always wins. (The invisible hand of the market is a myth - people don't choose things on principles unless they have money to burn).

Because there's no incentive to do it. The consequences of being tracked are outta sight outta mind.

That is why politicians get rich.

But also, people do not generally hesitate in front of an all-you-can-eat bouffe

> And weirdly they always seem oddly intended to diminish the core concern being addressed.

No they don’t. OP says it’s funny, that’s all.