zlacker

>>hliyan+(OP)
We really need some legislation that outlaws this sort of control over devices we buy.

If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough.

If I buy a tv I shouldn't just have to accept that, now or in the future, the manufacturer will sell advertising on it.

>>jamesb+X2
I'm going to keep this sort of on topic and this will not be a popular opinion.

No, this does not need legislation. If you don't wants ads on your refrigerator, how about not buying a refrigerator with a screen built in, it's not necessary.

>>mlrtim+Ih
Try to buy a new TV without « smart » features. It’s nearly impossible and all of them will come with some kind of ads on it. I fear it will become impossible to buy a fridge without screen and ad if we don’t find a way to stop this. It’s pure profit for manufacturers and the consumers are fucked since fridge are basic necessities.

>>Arcanu+3j
That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen

>>gentoo+1l
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.

>>fzeror+9o
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.

>>gentoo+Ao
It might also not be keeping your food cold, if they build it so that a screen failure bricks the thing

>>duskdo+nx
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.