zlacker

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+(OP)
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+j1
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

>>moffka+j1
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.

>>duskdo+(OP)
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.

>>m-schu+85
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.

>>duskdo+k2
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

>>srmarm+j3
> 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.

>>hn8726+Rb
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.

>>duskdo+(OP)
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.