Did your Roku TV decide to strong arm you into giving up your rights or lose your FULLY FUNCTIONING WORKING TV? Because mine did.

It doesn’t matter if you only use it as a dumb panel for an Apple TV, Fire stick, or just to play your gaming console. You either agree or get bent.

  • Eh?@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “My child, a minor, clicked agree when trying to use the TV I paid for. I have never seen this EULA.”

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, I believe I heard there was a case that had proved that judges have no interest in holding people to EULAs.

      • jeremyparker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think anyone is allowed to take away your right to being a part of a class action lawsuit as a requirement to use a TV. Recent SCOTUS shenanigans aside, I can’t imagine a judge would let that fly.

        • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Maybe those who sign up for warranty promos that often offer free gifts? Plenty more space for meditation language in the bottom of that EULA

  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    4 months ago

    I got this yesterday, as well. There’s no way this could hold up legally, right? Like my 7 year old could easily just click through that, no way this is a legally binding contract to forfeit jury rights and right to sue.

    …right?

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 months ago

    Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.

    Now it’s the complete opposite.

    • Technus@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      4 months ago

      Worst part is, now you can’t find a dumb TV anymore. The closest thing out there are “commercial signage displays” which are just dumb TVs with limited inputs and usually without remotes, but 25-50% more expensive because “commercial” (and because they won’t be able to continue making money by showing you ads and selling your data) and a lot of retailers won’t let you order one without a business account, or force you to order in bulk.

      And every Neanderthal I complain to is like “but smart TVs have so many more features,” like, bro, I can make any TV the smartest fucking TV in the world by plugging it into the desktop PC I’m gonna keep right next to it anyway. All the “smart” bullshit just gets in the way. I’ve yet to encounter a smart TV UI that didn’t require a dozen button presses to change inputs and spend two seconds or more re-drawing the UI with EVERY INPUT because they put the cheapest processors they can find in these pieces of shit.

      • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        Commercial displays cost more because backlight testing and ratings double or triple. You’re paying more for longer uptime since your display is likely to run 12+ hours a day straight and not for 1-2 hours a day with an occasional 8+ hour usage. You’re also paying actual cost, but a lot of it really has to do with testing and materials that are built to survive consistent and frequent usage, plus centralized management. Lots of people assume it’s the same shit, but it’s completely different and it shows when you buy a consumer off the shelf display and put it in production.

        • OR3X@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Good luck finding a 65 inch computer monitor

            • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I mean, thanks for the link but, if you actually try to find it on Amazon for example it doesn’t exist. So that’s not terribly helpful.

                • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  No, the 65 inch 4K TV is three times cheaper because of the smart features. They sell the data they collect from you, and the ads.

              • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The thing is 5 years old so that’s hardly surprising. I just googled 65 inch monitor and this was the first hit.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Just checked Geizhals and apparently there’s none currently, the largest is the HP Omen X, 64.5". Close enough though I’d say. There’s 55 monitors 46" and higher but only 7 52" and higher.

                  At that size I’m obliged to ask if you don’t want a projector instead.

            • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              as a projector owner myself, i would not say “so easy”. they are a lot more work to set up, are more unsightly in living spaces, require light control, require more maintenance and cleaning, and even after all that the picture quality is still never going to approach a decent HDR panel. It’s only really worth it if you need/want a 100”+ picture, otherwise you’d be better off with an 85” TV.

        • jjsca@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Show me a 50 inch computer monitor with speakers and multiple hdmi inputs, and I’ll agree with you.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Skipping the first couple because they’re ultrawide (probably not the best for TV usage) the cheapest one is the GIGABYTE AORUS FO48U. 2xHDMI, 1x DisplayPort, 1xUSB-C, about a thousand euroons. Expensive? Well, it’s OLED. So is the equally-priced LG UltraGear OLED 48GQ900-B, Three HDMI plus DisplayPort.

                Also they’re not dumb TVs they don’t come with tuners, a PCIe version will run you about a hundred bucks, plus the rest of your media server. Or something like 20 bucks (seriously) for a receiver, more like 60 if you want a triple-tuner (DVB-C/T2/S2) that runs Linux (double-check that the bootloader is unlocked, though, can’t be arsed to). And yes of course they’re more expensive they’re not cross-financed by showing you ads. Do you want a TV or a billboard?

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve heard that if you want a dumb TV, you buy a smart TV with input priority on the hdmi and never connect to the internet.

        How accurate is that?

        I wouldn’t know, as I’ve been blessed with a couple of dumb tvs from the golden age of dumb tvs for the last 10 years.

        • moody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Some smart TVs need to be connected before they’ll even start.

          The key thing is to make sure you look into that stuff before you buy.

          My TV is from the before days, and when it dies I’m not sure what the plan will be. Possibly a large monitor at 3x the price.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            The key thing is to make sure you look into that stuff before you buy.

            Or better yet, buy it and then return it as defective, ideally repeatedly and gathering a whole bunch of other people to do the same en masse, until companies start losing so much money on this shit that they’re forced to be less shitty.

              • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Found the youngster or missed a sarcasm tag. I remember a time when my 50 inch was considered leading class for weighing “only” 60 lbs, my tvs before that one all weighed over 100 lbs (CRTs). I literally unironically can throw most tvs upto 65 inches just over my shoulder, and if the boxes weren’t so awkwardly big I could carry a few at a time. TVs may be a lot things but not heavy, most 43 inch tvs are under 20 lbs now.

          • natebluehooves@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            My hisense google tv connected to an open wifi network and updated without being told to. The update broke CEC and hdmi arc. I cannot adequately express my rage at this moment.

      • Fisch@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        What I don’t get about smart TVs is why you can’t use it with your phone. That’s one of Kodi’s best features. You can just type using your phone keyboard. Typing with a TV remote is a fucking NIGHTMARE.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Can’t you plug in your computer into an HDMI port and simply not use the “smart” features?

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes, you absolutely can. Or you can use pihole to block ads/updates. Or you can use a raspberry pi with kodi. Or a streaming stick. Or you can use it normally.

          Just make sure you buy from a store with a return policy that let’s you test the TV for your use case. Which in the EU is any online retailer, for 14 days.

          • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            There are tvs that wait a month before giving you a big manually dismissed popup about not being connected to the internet.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        So anybody who doesn’t have A FUCKING DESKTOP PC near their TV is a Neanderthal?

        I have a smart TV from 2019 and it runs perfectly fine, it’s snappy and convenient. Switching inputs requires 2 button presses (3 if you don’t want to wait 3 seconds to auto-switch to the selected one) or I can automate it with home assistant for a “movie watching” scene for instance, for 0 button presses.

        Plus you seem to completely misunderstand what digital signage TV are.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I have always opposed smart TVs. Most of my reasoning is because the UI is almost always dogshit slow because the hardware and software is thrown in as an afterthought. But I’ll add this to my reasoning for not getting a smart TV.

      A signage TV with a streaming stick/box is perfectly fine for what I need. Jellyfin does not care what I’m playing.

      Edit: Also, I did not even notice that there was no option to reject this. It is just a close button. There is no way this shit is enforceable.

      • BothsidesistFraud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I haven’t looked into it, but there’s got to be some open source firmware for a lot of these TVs, right? To improve the UI and remove all spyware and bloatware?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      The worst part is that all these Smart TVs run Linux, whose GPL license was explicitly designed to prevent this sort of user-hostile bullshit. Unfortunately, because the Linux contributors decided to stick with version 2 of the license instead of converting to version 3, it’s stuck with a loophole that allows companies to get away with this abuse.

      It’s a goddamned travesty.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The GPL ensures user software freedom for us to remove this crap by requiring them to share their source code. Using Linux doesn’t mean they have to follow the GPL unless they make modifications to it.

        You need every software contributors to agree to a license change unless the license gives an upgrade option. Most contributors had no choice but to use GPLv2 as it wasn’t “GPLv2-or-later” to start with, maybe it was posdible at one point but they didn’t want to anyway.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The GPL ensures user software freedom for us to remove this crap by requiring them to share their source code. Using Linux doesn’t mean they have to follow the GPL unless they make modifications to it.

          That’s not quite the issue.

          First of all, the GPL requires you to make the source available if you distribute the software, whether you modify it or not. And in fact TV manufacturers do provide source code, if you dig through their websites to find the disused basement lavatory with the sign saying “beware of the leopard.”

          Second, the issue is that the source code isn’t actually going to work if you try to compile it and install it on the device, because they have DRM to prevent anything other than what the manufacturer has cryptographically signed from being allowed to run. See also: Tivoization.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s correct. My response was intended to point out proprietary software can run on Linux and GPL doesn’t apply.

            I have read arguments in favor of GPL v2 over v3 and found them unconvincing.

          • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Linux will never go to GPLv3 because Linus is pussywhipped by the Foundation and it’s sponsors

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Technology in general is supposed to make our lives easier. It seems many things these days do the opposite.

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I wish there were dumb options but since they’re all subsidised with loads of ads, they’re either unaffordable or plain unavailable. They just don’t make them for the consumer market anymore, there’s no demand for it. So they took advantage of that and market the dumb TVs as business TVs at huge markups, like 5+ grands for basic 4K no HDR no VRR no nothing, and they won’t even sell it to you without a registered business account.

    • Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They are better, but you foolishly assumed that they meant better for the consumer, not better for the seller.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 months ago

    Isn’t this equivalent to those trucks that have “stay back 300 feet - not responsible for damage” signage, when in reality they are legally responsible if their load isn’t secured?

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      it certainly hasn’t been tested in court yet, at least not that I’ve been able to find. These EULAs are often just corporate wishlists and until they go in front of a judge it’s difficult to know what provisions will actually stick. I hope that they don’t have the ability to bait and switch EULAs but this is America, some judge somewhere might take it upon himself to protect my freedom to have my TV remotely disabled after I pay for it.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        These EULAs are often just corporate wishlists

        Then I really wish there were regulations over what kinds of things you’re allowed to put in a contract. If there were punitive measures for putting things in contracts that anyone should know is not enforceable, then maybe companies would think twice before putting language like this in.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          There are some regulations. A contract can be ruled unconscionable by a court, which is basically saying “no one in their right mind would ever agree to this so we’re not gonna enforce it”. Contracts have to give both sides duties (things they have to do) and consideration (things they get for performing the duties), so no court will enforce a contract that doesn’t materially benefit both sides in some way.

          But I agree with you that there should be some sort of blowback to putting together purposely overreaching contracts and then counting on people not knowing their rights or not having the resources to enforce them in order to profit from an illegitimate contract.

          • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, that second paragraph is more what I was thinking (terrible phrasing on my part). The issue is that fighting these contracts in court is risky - you might lose, and even if you don’t, it’s a big commitment to fight a legal case against a large company no matter which jurisdiction you’re in.

            To put it another way, look at it from a game theory perspective - there’s plenty of benefit from putting these terms in, and no downside whatsoever. So the optimal move for vendors is to put garbage like this into the contact.

      • brianorca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        There have been US court cases where arbitration clauses were voided if they weren’t prominently visible outside the box before purchase. Dang vs Samsung

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “This is the type of shit I be talking about” —dmx

          Iirc wasn’t that one on the box of a fridge, but the people who installed it deboxed it first and then Samsung tried to argue that the customer was still bound by a EULA they never knew existed?

      • droans@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        it certainly hasn’t been tested in court yet, at least not that I’ve been able to find.

        Arbitration is allowed in an EULA and has been sanctioned by courts.

        Most agreements are considered enforceable as long as their content is reasonable, you have been granted sufficient notice to accept or decline the agreement, the agreement is not unconscionable, and it doesn’t violate the UCC.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The question isn’t whether arbitration clauses are legal the question is whether selling someone something and then, after the sale, presenting them with a take it or leave it EULA that disables the product if they dont agree, and also what recourse the consumer has if they don’t agree to a post-sale EULA. Brower v Gateway said that post-sale EULAs are binding but only because in that case the consumer had the option to return the product for a refund and didn’t. Klocek v Gateway ruled that any terms presented after a sale represent a separate contract beyond the one that was agreed to by both parties at the time of sale. It’s possible that either of these would apply to the OP. It’s also possible for courts to rule that the sale of the physical TV was a one-time agreement but that this EULA is separate and represents an ongoing agreement to allow access to Roku’s services.

          Your comment actually circles around the issue at hand when you say that EULAs are enforceable if “…you have been granted sufficient notice to accept or decline…”. The thrust of the argument is that adding conditions after the sale of an object that, if not agreed to, render the object inoperable feels an awful lot like not being given sufficient notice and is essentially a backdoor by which the contract can be unilaterally amended after agreement.

          • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I just think that contracts of adhesion (IIRC) should be illegal or unenforceable. Make me wet sign a document or go to a separate docusign at least, this click wrap is crap. Get me to affirmatively agree, not click OK till the install or setup completes. Otherwise I strongly disagree there’s actually a meeting of the minds. And if I can’t send back my suggested alterations for cross signatures, it’s not a valid contract either IMHO.

            That said, we’ve decided to continue to screw people over as we all know.

  • Constant Pain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Here in Brazil, EULAs (they are called adhesion contracts here) can only deal with the way service is provided and cannot limit consumer rights in any way. Even if the contract has these types of clauses, they are considered void by default.

    These types of things never fly here.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      The same is mostly true in the US. The companies use them to scare people into settlements. But it does depend on the state.

        • Belgdore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It depends on your state. The verbiage that works on one state doesn’t necessarily work in another.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wonder why Roku make you sign this agreement out of the blue. I think they’re about to drop either an acquisition announcement, or news they were hacked.

    I of course signed it like an idiot. I hate this cyberpunk present.

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Man if a hacker wants to break into my Roku to watch my streams I don’t really mind. Would be kinda cool to see what their preferences are on what they watch. Just don’t use my profile, that’s an act of war.

    • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Was it your or you’re 8 year old who was just trying to watch some cartoons? 🤔

      You are right there is something coming though

  • catbum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just an FYI, although they aren’t physical products like this Roku, many apps and digital services have added the very same binding arbitration clauses recently.

    The McDonald’s app for one. I ended up deleting the app after it tried to force me into binding arbitration and I didn’t want to go through to opt-out process for marginally cheaper, shitty food, so I just deleted the app altogether and haven’t eaten there since November.

    Watch out for it if you drive for doordash or ubereats as well. I opted out of both, although they claimed you couldn’t opt out in an new contract when you didn’t before (a bunch of BS, if the current contract you are about to sign says it supercedes all others, you can’t make the lack of an opt-out on a previous contract hold up).

    On-going services might make sense for these shitty enough clauses, but to be strong armed into it for physical product you bought free and clear … Disgusting.

    It’s like all these companies are locking themselves down to minimize legal exposure because they know that their services and products are getting more awful or something.

    • BothsidesistFraud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I legit don’t know how binding arbitration can be legal.

      Agreeing to terms of actual usage of the product, I understand. Like for a pogo stick, assuming your own risk of injury.

      But I don’t know how they can legally just say that suing is impossible.

  • corymbia@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Sections 1(F) and 1(L) seem like the only ways out/around of this. (IANAL; the bolding emphasis was done by me.)

    F. Small Claims. You or Roku may pursue any Claim, except IP Claims, in a small-claims court instead of through arbitration if (i) the Claim meets the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims court and (ii) the small claims court does not permit class or similar representative actions or relief.

    L. 30-Day Right to Opt Out. You have the right to opt out of arbitration by sending written notice of your decision to opt out to the following address by mail: General Counsel, Roku Inc., 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112 within 30 days of you first becoming subject to these Dispute Resolution Terms. Such notice must include the name of each person opting out and contact information for each such person, the specific product models, software, or services used that are at issue, the email address that you used to set up your Roku account (if you have one), and, if applicable, a copy of your purchase receipt. For clarity, opt-out notices submitted via any method other than mail (including email) will not be effective. If you send timely written notice containing the required information in accordance with this Section 1(L), then neither party will be required to arbitrate the Claims between them.

    Any lawyers out there who can speak towards the three bolded parts?

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The real question is what is Roku doing that might necessitate a jury trial in the first place.

    The answer is spying and selling all your data to advertisers. Using ACR they can tell everything passing through that box and display adverts accordingly. Just what you want when watching a DVD.

  • Dave.@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Send them a letter via registered mail stating that upon receipt of said letter they waive their right to waive your rights.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Similar things have worked in countries that aren’t so under the thrall of the mighty corporation. I recall some guy in … Russia? who struck out and reworded a bunch of penalty clauses for a credit card offer he got and mailed it back to the bank, which accepted it and issued the card. Cue much hilarity as he racked up a bunch of charges and then got it thrown out in court. (Actually, here’s a link.. They eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.)

        Anyway, I live in Australia so my response to all these kinds of attempts at removal of my consumer rights is a drawn out “yeah, nahhhh”

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    4 months ago

    My Roku TV’s been reset to factory and not allowed on the internet for a few years now. It’s a TV. It displays shit that I give it over HDMI. If you desire more than that you’re part of the problem. I work in IT and that’s why my home has physical locks, a 30 year old thermostat, and cameras I own with recordings on a DVR I own.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      In my experience, people that use the phrase “you’re part of the problem” so loosely are often the most miserable jackasses anyone ever allowed into society.

      People just want neat things. It’s not wrong to want neat things.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not wrong, but it’s just terribly short-sighted. You’re giving greed-crazed companies total control over a device that you own and nobody else should be able to touch.

        Shiny things come at a cost. Sure, it may look convenient and super cool to have all these features, but it’s important to understand the trade-offs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg - we don’t even know what kinds of malice these companies will think of 5-10 years from now when these machines are even more widespread and probably come with even more invasive anti-user hardware capabilities.

        It’s not wrong… it’s just very very naïve.

        • phx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Most people don’t get that this is even possible until it bites them in the ass like this.

          Certainly my own parents wouldn’t think to try and find a “dumb” TV in this market or to not connect the damn thing to the internet like it tells you when you power it on. They bought a TV that lets them watch Netflix.

          By the same token, I don’t except my fucking microwave to suddenly require that I accept a ToS in order to nuke a potato, or to suddenly start showing me ads in increasing amounts a year or more after I bought and paid for it.

          Users aren’t the problem. Shitty companies and a lack of strong legislation against this (or legislators being for it) are the problem. Nobody should ever be presented with a 50 page ever-changing EULA for a product they’ve paid for to access common functionality.

          They’re not a problem. They’re not even naive. They’re just not savvy on all things about a given technology especially when it comes up aspects of legal arguments on such.

        • sfgifz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          No ones asking you to stick some shiny thing up your ass and walk around to see how it fits. If you don’t like these services don’t use them, for most of us the convinience of an Internet connected device that let’s you stream content published to the Internet is a value.

          • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The issue is that the market has spoken. People want cool neat things and they want them cheap. Companies were able to lower the price of major devices by including all the always-online stuff as it generated revenue after the initial purchase.

            Now everything comes with smart shit wether you want it or not, and for those that dont, the product they wish to have dosent exist or is more expensive. So… the argument that the “naiveity” of the masses is making things worse is valid.

      • Reygle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree. That was why I originally bought the damned thing. Once I saw what it was doing on my network I decided “nope, that’s enough from you” and reset it. I’m not saying people who also bought it and continue to use it as intended are dumb, I’m suggesting the device itself and what it does is evil.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not wrong to think people are stupid for wanting pointlessly internet connected things either.

        • Vit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well sure, but we’re not talking about a washing machine or a refrigerator. Currently most media we watch is over the internet, so I at least don’t consider a TV with an internet connection “pointlessly” online.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            4 months ago

            Okay, well you are free to enjoy having your device bricked whenever the company you bought it from wants to.

            • Vit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              And that’s incredibly unfortunate. Make no mistake, I’m not arguing in favor of the companies here. I was merely pointing out that TVs are not one of the impractical “smart” devices, which I believe you implied. There’s plenty of good use cases for an internet connected TV, and I don’t think users are stupid for wanting one. I too wish that we could have nice things not be ruined by corporate greed. That’s all. Have a good day.

          • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Weed doesn’t magically make you less hostile of a person. If that were the case Canada would be a hell of a lot better than it is now, and it isn’t.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I do smoke, wierdly enough it doesn’t make me not care about privacy and practicality.

    • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem with not being part of the problem is that, in many cases, it means no longer being able to be part of vast chunks of society. Take it from me - I’ve been boycotting Big Media and most entertainment platforms for about a decade, and now I genuinely can’t have any hobbies, besides of maybe activism, to share something with friends to begin with.

      • Reygle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m sorry that you feel that way. I’ve got hobbies that may not interest you, but I feel un-hindered by being off the big platforms. Different generation maybe.

        • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah about that, I never really had any friends, and now it’s increasingly difficult to make any if you don’t watch movies or listen to music or follow sports or play the more popular video games. There’s preciously little to talk about if you don’t engage in popular culture out of ethical concerns.

    • olafurp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If that’s the case, why not just go for a commercial display TV (like McD). They run virtually forever and you get them for very low prices.

      • vrozon@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Happen to have any examples? The last time I looked into this (around 5 years ago) everything that existed in this category was substantially lower quality and substantially more expensive.

      • Reygle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sure! I didn’t know when I bought it that I’d come to this conclusion, but I learned over time. Been about 4 years or so since I bought it.

    • gearheart@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Interesting take… If we desire to use the full advertised features of a product we own we are part of the problem.

      I suggest some self love and an open mind to learn and adapt. It’s okay though not everyone is capable of this.

    • 5in1k@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s what I have always done. I tried a Firestick once and found it terrible and tedious. Especially compared to M&K. I have a monster ass commercial quality smart tv and it will never access the internet on it’s own.

    • tty5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      There are no dumb TVs if you want e.g. OLED. The closest you can get is a smart tv that you never connect to the internet. If you like 4k HDR it will still be a major pain…

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think you’re qualified for a full refund in most regions if you disagree with the new terms.