zlacker

>>pictur+(OP)
I want to see meaningful pushback on this indefensible move of forcing customers to establish and maintain a relationship with the manufacturer in order to use the products they sell.

Other examples are: Wahoo, who locked the control of their products behind an account and login requirement for devices which had been working perfectly fine for years prior.

Roche, who killed their blood glucose app at the start of 2023 and forced all their users to move to a third party app, developed by one of their subsidiaries, which requires you to accept a data exfiltration clause, if they wish to continue the automagic on-device logging.

>>1ncorr+P4
Ring doorbells, because the microphone heard the citizen say the N-word and locked him out of the Amazon account.

Back then, we thought legal questions about discrimination silly - if the baker won't bake cakes for lesbians, who cares, there are dozens of bakers in town who are not silly, why fight with the one who is, especially since the only recourse you will get is a birthday cake.

But now with the app monopolies it's different. If Lyft bans you over a justified chargeback and Uber bans you over another justified chargeback you are going to have a problem.

>>HarryH+Na
Not what happened. The driver thought they heard the nword come from a Eufy doorbell. Which was them mishearing the automated response. No person uttered an nword and no ring doorbell was involved.

Amazon did lock the guys account for the report from their driver. That did lock him out of his other IoT devices.

>>nickth+Wb
The thing is - even racists have a right that their devices work. They paid money for it. Amazon's duty is to protect their driver, and if they refuse to deliver because a driver has been threatened that's OK. But they can't lock him out of their alarm system or automated door opener. It's worse because when you choose a camera doorbell because you have a choice between Ring and Nest, which is not much of a choice.