Most consumers are unwilling to take an option that they perceive as inconveniencing them more than getting screwed by the company inconveniences them.
The reality is that companies know they can get away with crap because they all get away with crap. And because they all do it, consumers are powerless.
This is why regulation isn’t a bad the thing that many HNers seem to recoil at. The real problem with regulation is when it’s defined by lobbyists rather than consumer groups. But even then, it’s really no different to the status quo where businesses are never held accountable.
A disturbing proportion of my family spend more than half of their free time watching television (typically while doom scrolling tiktok). They don't "need" TVs - they need to find interests.
In my experience for most people it's strictly a time wasting/filling/background noise activity. If you are spending a considerable amount of time watching television to time waste then you probably should try and find more fulfilling activities. This is not prescriptive of what those would be.
Needless to say, I now focus on my own free time rather than thinking about how others should spend theirs.
Also, now I’m in my 40s, I treasure the couple of hours I spend a week watching TV with my kids. We play games, sports and such like too. But sometimes it’s nice to cuddle on the sofa and share an experience in comfort.
Besides, it’s not like TVs are the only industry where consumer choice is an illusion. You see the same problem in a lot of sports (I used to fence and there was a great deal of pressure to buy equipment from one specific manufacturer which charged literally 4x the price for their gear).
And it’s not just hobbies either. I need a car for family duties and there are plenty of parts on it that can only be replaced by an authorised dealer.
Nobody dictates that. What we do is to suggest there might be more rewarding things to do with their time off than watching TV between the dopamine hits from TikTok
Not physically forced, but that doesn’t mean the comments weren’t said in a way that might appear forceful to other people due to the combination of bluntness and lack of compassion.
For something to be dictated, you don’t have to be in a position to enforce those comments.
The core part of what I wrote was "need." If you believe you "need" as in "can't go without" a TV, in this example, then you probably should consider whether or not you may be addicted to consuming television.
Do this as an exercise: Which of these statements indicates that somebody may have a a problem?
- I need a cigarette
- I need a beer
- I need a TV
- I need to eat
- I need some water
- I need to relax
The last three are clearly real needs. The first two are addictive. TV isn't a literal need, so if you find yourself NEEDING it, you may have a problem.
Eg
> I need to relax
And you’re replying to my comment that said:
> What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.
I do get the point you’re trying to make. But at best it’s an irrelevant semantic that, by your own admission, is still a basic need. And at worst, it’s just elitist “I don’t enjoy x so you shouldn’t either” BS.
Either way, it’s not a constructive argument.
From personal experience, it really really is barely even an inconvenience. Especially in a world where YouTube exists and is accessible for free from a desktop computer. There's barely been anything good on TV for decades, and the older stuff probably only seemed good because of the difficulty of publishing any competition.
But I also know a hell of a lot of people who still massively prefer watching content the traditional way. As in, not just TV shows, but on a TV too. And I have no more right to tell them how to consume video content as they do to tell me how I should consume the stuff I want to read.
I sometimes suggest they’d do themselves a favor if they stopped watching Fox News and reality TV, that life is much better without that.
Fine if it works for you, but TV has plenty of things going for it... big screens, watch from 10 ft away on a couch, watch with other people, regular schedule (i.e. Jeopardy on the same time every day), live sports, local news, shows with generally high production values. But probably most importantly, passivity - yes that is a feature.
The TV I have has never had an antenna cable plugged, or an internet connection. It’s, from day one, been a large HDMI monitor to an Apple TV, a Nintendo Switch and a C64 Maxi with some other devices plugged in from time to time.
It IS possible to ignore the TV’s software most of the time (mine, luckily, isn’t intrusive at all) and use it as a conduit for a much cheaper and easily replaced (or hacked) device.
I remember how surprised the engineers at [manufacturer redacted] were when I told them they had everything needed to turn their TVs into thin clients and meeting room monitors right into the Linux firmware just a compile away. I’d totally love a 35” X terminal in 2008 with Ethernet and a couple USB ports.
But we aren’t normal people. Normal people wouldn’t even know how to set up a media centre. And the Nintendo Switch famously has next to no video streaming platforms on it.
It's both a blessing and a curse.
Are there some things I would struggle with if suddenly there were issues? Sure. I had to significantly increase my internet spend because of the (much) cheaper option going to complete shit. I require the internet for my career but unless the entire world collapses I doubt I'll run into any true blocker that would prevent me from using it for work.
Most people are just afraid to change their lives substantively. I am too, but I'm also willing to do it for causes I believe in.
My point is that your list is one list which you are making, but someone else could look at your life and make a different list. Your argument only goes so far you can extend into your own life. If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do.
This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
> Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them.
If you didn't expect me to be introspective to MYSELF then why even bother asking? Of course my list is personal.
While it is personal, it also can apply to others. The reality is that most people are completely unwilling to inconvenience themselves.
Go without hot water? Okay, sure. I take cold showers, they are better for your skin. I wash my clothes with cold water. The only thing I use hot water for is dishes. I think that might be a bit weird, but I think dish soap is anti bacterial so it's probably not an issue? Now you can reply to this saying: "well YOU can do that but other people will feel differently." No shit. But most of the world goes without hot water so who cares.
> If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do.
Most people don't actually care about TV in their life - they just have never thought for a minute to consider the reality of not having one.
> This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
Not sure how this is relevant. I'm all for consumer protection. But the most apt way to protect yourself is to vote: first for politicians, and then with your wallet.
That was my whole point. You are making this about personal choices when it isn't, and using it as a way to judge people who don't make the same choices you do.