zlacker

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+(OP)
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+l1
That would be a waste of money on the manufacturers part. It will always be possible to disable the screen

>>mlrtim+(OP)
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...

>>gentoo+j3
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+r6
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+S6
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.

>>fzeror+l7
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.

>>gentoo+38
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.

>>gentoo+j3
No for everybody it won't. Not to even mention the waste.

>>whynot+ac
You don't own the gas pump, and it isn't in your house.

>>creata+n4
Mazda is alright. iirc the CEO has expressed disinterest in touchscreens and distractions from driving

>>gentoo+S6
It might also not be keeping your food cold, if they build it so that a screen failure bricks the thing

>>Levitz+qd
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

>>Arcanu+l1
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.

>>gentoo+Uf
“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.”

>>mlrtim+(OP)
This shows an irrational level of faith in the market

>>s0sa+Tg
"Officer, take that ugly man away, we don't want to have to look at him"

>>fzeror+r6
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.

>>mlrtim+(OP)
Nah, we don't want these leeches to get a chance to flood the market driving out competitors.

>>duskdo+Ff
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.

>>gentoo+mi
Don’t confuse things we can change with things we can’t.

>>jazzyj+Df
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.

>>s0sa+NK
People are born naked, there's nothing inherently wrong with being naked unless there's something inherently wrong with being a person.

>>jazzyj+Df
exception confirming the rule

>>gentoo+Uf
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.