zlacker

[parent] [thread] 56 comments
1. jamesb+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-06 08:22:48
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.

replies(9): >>duskdo+y3 >>pwdiss+59 >>mcv+n9 >>hodges+Ob >>mlrtim+Le >>ricard+Bf >>RataNo+TB >>agilob+2O >>ottah+9T1
2. duskdo+y3[view] [source] 2025-12-06 09:10:04
>>jamesb+(OP)
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

replies(3): >>moffka+R4 >>m-schu+G8 >>2OEH8e+hY
◧◩
3. moffka+R4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 09:27:44
>>duskdo+y3
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.
replies(2): >>duskdo+S5 >>srmarm+R6
◧◩◪
4. duskdo+S5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 09:42:22
>>moffka+R4
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
replies(1): >>hn8726+pf
◧◩◪
5. srmarm+R6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 09:54:57
>>moffka+R4
That may be true but doesn't help if not accepting the terms prevents you from using the device.

On a practical level you then at best have a battle to get a third party (the retailer) to give you a refund and most people faced with the option of removing and returning a huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it.

It does need some stubborn and tenacious people to make a stand and set a president - perhaps backed by a consumer rights group but it's an uphill battle.

replies(1): >>exe34+6A
◧◩
6. m-schu+G8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 10:15:39
>>duskdo+y3
Terms and conditions can't just force anything on the buyer. like, you can't enslave people and point at the terms and conditions. It should also be outlawed to enshittify products with terms and conditions.
replies(1): >>duskdo+5e
7. pwdiss+59[view] [source] 2025-12-06 10:21:37
>>jamesb+(OP)
> If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough.

No, it should be illegal even when done willingly. Because this worsens the bargaining position of everyone else.

replies(3): >>Freak_+Md >>nish__+Qy >>monoos+Y71
8. mcv+n9[view] [source] 2025-12-06 10:27:17
>>jamesb+(OP)
Outlawing this specific scenario sounds pretty hard. I can see only two reasonable options:

* Ban all advertisements. (I'm all for it, at this point.)

* Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads

Forcing ads onto stuff we pay money for is not okay. Ads to fund free content is probably unavoidable, but even then, it needs to be clear up front what you're subjecting yourself to. Unexpected ads on devices you don't expect them from, can be confusing and disorienting for many people. For people with schizophrenia, it can clearly be dangerous.

And I think this is not just true for smart fridges, but also for those billboards at bus stops that seem stationary at first until they suddenly start to move or talk to you. Ban those please. Or make it clear upfront that they're video. Don't spring this on unsuspecting people.

replies(4): >>duskdo+re >>hn8726+wf >>dotanc+cj >>ufmace+HX
9. hodges+Ob[view] [source] 2025-12-06 10:59:35
>>jamesb+(OP)
Hmm, maybe there's a simple legislative fix for this problem. Basically vendors that want to make you "rent" devices would have to allow termination for convenience at any time by customer including repayment of any fees paid by the customer for the device.

Termination for convenience is a standard term in contracts, hence well-understood by corporate lawyers. The repayment could be reduced using a depreciation schedule so the longer the device is in your hands the less that's returned.

I think this would work. The legal machinery is already there. The market would work out the details.

◧◩
10. Freak_+Md[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:21:57
>>pwdiss+59
That might sound strange at first, but we've seen enough now to know that this will inevitably mean that a lot of manufacturers will follow this model.

I can imagine deals where you get a huge 'rebate' if you permanently enable the ad-feature (the on-screen wizard will blow one of those tiny fuses as its final step, locking the device to that setting). That effectively mandates that the price for the device is its selling price minus the huge rebate, and the whole market will adjust to that.

Just ban advertising on those devices.

replies(1): >>sakomp+zw
◧◩◪
11. duskdo+5e[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:25:56
>>m-schu+G8
Yeah, I agree with you on both. I don't see much of a way out though that doesn't basically require dismantling the entire for-profit corporate order.
◧◩
12. duskdo+re[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:30:59
>>mcv+n9
Can we talk about billboards too? As in, giant, increasingly bright ads intended to catch our attention while we're supposed to be carefully operating giant speeding hunks of metal?
13. mlrtim+Le[view] [source] 2025-12-06 11:35:02
>>jamesb+(OP)
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.

replies(4): >>Arcanu+6g >>creata+8j >>MangoT+1x >>nish__+Hy
◧◩◪◨
14. hn8726+pf[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:43:42
>>duskdo+S5
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
replies(1): >>ImPost+RD
◧◩
15. hn8726+wf[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:45:37
>>mcv+n9
> Make sure smart-devices make extremely clear that they can be used to show ads, and include trivial instructions to disable ads

The other way around — make it clear that the devices are capable of showing ads, and provide instructions on how to opt-in to them (and no cookie-like prompts either)

replies(1): >>duskdo+ag
16. ricard+Bf[view] [source] 2025-12-06 11:46:08
>>jamesb+(OP)
From another posts recently, just the fact some of the greatest minds in our planet are mostly working in advertising and trying to squeeze the most out of consumers just tell us everything. Our society is so rotten. This time of the year it gets even worst.
replies(1): >>nish__+wy
◧◩
17. Arcanu+6g[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:52:28
>>mlrtim+Le
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.
replies(2): >>gentoo+4i >>scythe+kv
◧◩◪
18. duskdo+ag[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 11:53:42
>>hn8726+wf
But..... then nobody will opt in to see the ads.... :(
◧◩◪
19. gentoo+4i[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:14:31
>>Arcanu+6g
That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen
replies(2): >>fzeror+cl >>Levitz+bs
◧◩
20. creata+8j[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:28:53
>>mlrtim+Le
People said the same thing about cars. People said the same thing about smart TVs. Do you know any cars currently being manufactured that respect your privacy?

https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/cate...

replies(1): >>jazzyj+ou
◧◩
21. dotanc+cj[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:29:31
>>mcv+n9
And are only the visible part of the iceberg. The part you don't see is the collection of personal data. That is linked to habits - and to deviations from habits - and that is shared with third parties.
◧◩◪◨
22. fzeror+cl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:49:32
>>gentoo+4i
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.
replies(2): >>gentoo+Dl >>rander+ty
◧◩◪◨⬒
23. gentoo+Dl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:54:01
>>fzeror+cl
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.

replies(2): >>fzeror+6m >>duskdo+qu
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
24. fzeror+6m[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 12:58:13
>>gentoo+Dl
It would be with merit, because it would be part of the contract you signed when you bought the damn thing. We already live in a world where any attempt to bypass DRM on things you've bought is tantamount to a potential legal battle if they really wanted to be assholes about it. Where you don't really own the things you buy.
replies(1): >>gentoo+Om
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
25. gentoo+Om[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 13:02:45
>>fzeror+6m
Drm is one thing, taping construction paper over a screen is another. That contract would be unenforceable. Shit is dystopian lately, but you're being hyperbolic.
replies(1): >>whynot+Vq
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
26. whynot+Vq[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 13:38:05
>>gentoo+Om
And what about ads on gas pump?

In many places, you can't legally buy gas outside of a gas pump that have a strong tendency to show more and more ads.

replies(1): >>gentoo+nu
◧◩◪◨
27. Levitz+bs[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 13:50:21
>>gentoo+4i
No for everybody it won't. Not to even mention the waste.
replies(1): >>gentoo+Fu
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
28. gentoo+nu[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:09:55
>>whynot+Vq
You don't own the gas pump, and it isn't in your house.
◧◩◪
29. jazzyj+ou[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:10:07
>>creata+8j
Mazda is alright. iirc the CEO has expressed disinterest in touchscreens and distractions from driving
replies(2): >>Camper+ZZ >>chrz+5j1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
30. duskdo+qu[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:10:24
>>gentoo+Dl
It might also not be keeping your food cold, if they build it so that a screen failure bricks the thing
replies(1): >>gentoo+YA
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. gentoo+Fu[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:12:26
>>Levitz+bs
No one can force you to watch ads, they're your eyeballs. There will always be a solution to this problem; if it's in your domicile then no one can stop you from spending time coming up with solutions
replies(2): >>s0sa+Ev >>Levitz+4u1
◧◩◪
32. scythe+kv[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:19:12
>>Arcanu+6g
My last two televisions both came from the "Sceptre" line at Walmart which seemed to be the last holdout of non-smart TVs. I don't know if they're still holding the line; the model I checked just now says it has "V-chip" but doesn't say anything about a "smart TV" operating system or any of that nonsense. It's not very well-advertised but it's still around. I don't know of any way to find a normal TV that isn't from Walmart or a thrift store, though.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
33. s0sa+Ev[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:22:12
>>gentoo+Fu
“Ma’am we’re not going to do anything about that flasher. No one can force you to look at him, they're your eyeballs.”
replies(1): >>gentoo+7x
◧◩◪
34. sakomp+zw[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:30:31
>>Freak_+Md
"Telly" [1] is a real 55" TV that is available for free. It is designed to always, constantly be running advertisements.

> To reserve a Telly, you must agree to use the device as the main TV in your home, constantly keep it connected to the internet, and regularly watch it. If the company finds that you violate these rules, Telly will ask you to return the TV (and charge a $1,000 fee if you don’t send it back).

1: https://www.theverge.com/televisions/777588/telly-tv-hands-o...

replies(1): >>ventur+yF1
◧◩
35. MangoT+1x[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:34:55
>>mlrtim+Le
This shows an irrational level of faith in the market
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
36. gentoo+7x[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:36:47
>>s0sa+Ev
"Officer, take that ugly man away, we don't want to have to look at him"
replies(1): >>s0sa+yZ
◧◩◪◨⬒
37. rander+ty[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:49:24
>>fzeror+cl
I've long wondered what would happen if, say, NYT sued me for blocking their many ads (despite being a paying subscriber). My argument would be that I'd never click on the ads anyway out of principle, so the ad blocker is just me delegating the ignoring of ads that I would've done myself regardless. Also that if I couldn't turn off ads, I wouldn't have subscribed and they'd make even less revenue.

That said, I doubt these companies would sue because of the risk of setting a precedent in favor of the consumer. Scary legal letters (e.g. cease & desist letters) perhaps. But given enough customers, at least one will have the resources to hire a good lawyer and fight it all the way to court.

◧◩
38. nish__+wy[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:49:39
>>ricard+Bf
Their minds aren't that great if they chose to work in ad-tech, let's be honest.
replies(2): >>ricard+221 >>Telane+e02
◧◩
39. nish__+Hy[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:51:48
>>mlrtim+Le
Nah, we don't want these leeches to get a chance to flood the market driving out competitors.
◧◩
40. nish__+Qy[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 14:53:22
>>pwdiss+59
Also because just because something is done "willingly" doesn't mean they fully understand that it may not be in their best interest, long-term. This is why drugs are illegal.
◧◩◪◨
41. exe34+6A[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 15:03:14
>>srmarm+R6
> huge expensive device like a fridge with no guarantee of a refund are going to just leave it.

oh I'll fix it with a hammer, or glue a piece of cardboard on it.

I paid extra for devices without WiFi when I moved house this year.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
42. gentoo+YA[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 15:11:13
>>duskdo+qu
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.
43. RataNo+TB[view] [source] 2025-12-06 15:17:59
>>jamesb+(OP)
The weird part is that this isn't even a technical problem
◧◩◪◨⬒
44. ImPost+RD[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 15:31:23
>>hn8726+pf
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.

45. agilob+2O[view] [source] 2025-12-06 16:49:40
>>jamesb+(OP)
>If someone wants to install an advert app on their fridge (I assume in exchange for money) then fair enough.

If you're advertising me milk on a fridge I paid full price of, send me a full sized sample of the product.

◧◩
46. ufmace+HX[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:12:23
>>mcv+n9
> Ban all advertisements. (I'm all for it, at this point.)

What would that actually look like though?

Take something that could be considered an ad, but probably most people agree is a good thing. Say you post on here that task X is such a pain in the butt to do all the time as a general gripe, then I say hey, I built a cheap subscription webapp to solve task X easily that you might want to check out. You sign up for it and use it and like it. Seems like everybody wins - you get a problem solved for a small amount of money, I make a little money and get my project used and my work validated etc. But it's still technically an ad.

Lots of stuff like that could be considered an ad. Every "Show HN" could be considered an ad. Suggesting people vote for candidate X or party Y could be considered an ad too - plenty of organizations do pay for actual ads just like that already. Product placements is a type of ad, but it's pretty hard to not do. I don't know how you even make a movie or TV show with people driving cars without showing a particular model of car.

I don't expect that's the kind of ad that everybody is complaining about. Okay, but then how do you legislate the difference? Can you, or anyone, actually write down a definition of the ads you want to ban and the ads you don't? And how will people distort or abuse those definitions? There's billions of dollars in advertising (maybe trillions?), it's not going to all just go away because somebody passed a law. What happens when all of that money gets poured into attempting to abuse such individual personal recommendations? That's already happening on Reddit now, though at small scales for now.

◧◩
47. 2OEH8e+hY[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:16:51
>>duskdo+y3
Rossmann Calls it the "EULA Roofie."

Why didn't you read the EULA is like asking a roofie victim why didn't they have a chemist analyze their drink first.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
48. s0sa+yZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:25:24
>>gentoo+7x
Don’t confuse things we can change with things we can’t.
replies(1): >>gentoo+c31
◧◩◪◨
49. Camper+ZZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:28:52
>>jazzyj+ou
They have had to walk that back, because it cost them dearly in market share. Turns out most of their customers don't agree that touchscreens are unwanted.

There's also the fact that the problem was never about touchscreens per se, but inappropriate/incompetent UI design that happened to use touchscreens.

◧◩◪
50. ricard+221[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:44:16
>>nish__+wy
Maybe because money, it does that to people. I tend to agree.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
51. gentoo+c31[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:52:02
>>s0sa+yZ
People are born naked, there's nothing inherently wrong with being naked unless there's something inherently wrong with being a person.
◧◩
52. monoos+Y71[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 19:28:14
>>pwdiss+59
In what way?

The device that immediately springs to mind is the Kindle. You can choose to buy a version without ads, or save ~10% and accept ads.

That seems like a reasonable compromise.

◧◩◪◨
53. chrz+5j1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 21:13:37
>>jazzyj+ou
exception confirming the rule
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
54. Levitz+4u1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 22:51:41
>>gentoo+Fu
It's a fridge. We are not talking a server, a raspberry pi, a phone, we are talking about a fridge.

Do you want to talk to my 70 year old father about how he should come up with solutions to ads on his fridge? Yes he can grab a garbage bag and some tape, we can all probably agree that the day stuff like that is commonplace we have very, VERY evidently failed as a society when it comes to dealing with this specific issue.

◧◩◪◨
55. ventur+yF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-07 00:26:13
>>sakomp+zw
This reads like a really bad Black Mirror episode. Holy hell.
56. ottah+9T1[view] [source] 2025-12-07 03:20:44
>>jamesb+(OP)
At this point I'm convinced that ad spending has nothing to do with sales, revenue or any real business principal. It's about power and influence. Advertisers control the culture, news and the public discourse by always paying more than any self funded model would pay. They don't care how much it costs, the control over society is always worth more.
◧◩◪
57. Telane+e02[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-07 05:08:15
>>nish__+wy
Intelligence and empathy aren't necessarily corrolated. I'd imagine many people in the ad industry are very intelligent, and earn a lot of money though choosing to work in that industry, but care very little about what their work is actually doing to people beyond squeezing every cent out of them, or are able to use their smarts to rationalise their work actually being good.
[go to top]