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
Already done! You agreed to it in the Terms and Conditions - you did read them, right?

But yeah I agree with you, there needs to be a way for people to get away from ads without relying on the existence of some benevolent alternate company

>>duskdo+v6
Despite what the average multinational will have you believe, terms and conditions usually don't hold up in court. If they write some illegal bullshit into it, it's just that, bullshit.

>>moffka+O7
Sure, but that depends on the thing actually being illegal first. Genuine question - how often in practice are terms and conditions successfully challenged? My thought is that companies like that would be able to drain plaintiffs out before it getting that far very often

>>duskdo+P8
And how often in practice are terms and conditions attempted to be enforced in the first place? No need to challenge them if you can ignore them

>>hn8726+mi
If ignoring them is your only option, and challenging them would fail, we would expect to see a lack of challenging them. Which we do.

Unless there's a solid track record of people consistently challenging them and winning, we can assume, based on bayesian priors, that most people cannot.

Which makes sense: court costs money.