this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
776 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59296 readers
4519 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm, yes, I agree! Totally agree on this. No argument. I'm curious though - what TV would that be? What TV can someone buy today that doesn't require an initial setup process that requires an agreement to certain terms and conditions prior to use?
Not trying to be hostile towards you in particular. I'm feeling frustrated with this answer because I am seeing it a lot (both online and in online searches right now), but I'm having some difficulty finding it actually useful advice. Many devices are setup from the factory to not allow use until agreeing to certain terms and conditions that must be agreed to before using the TV. I need to know which TVs - if any - do not require this. It is surprisingly difficult! I feel frustrated with this answer because it feels reductive & dismissive of the actual problem.
Again, nothing against you in particular. I'm just frustrated with this - seemingly reasonable but not actually applicable based on what I have been able to research online so far - answer.
Samsung, Sony, and LG all let you skip connecting to there Internet. I prefer Sony TVs because Samsung has stupid VESA mounting options but they're all good
Show me one piece of technology in your life that didn't come with T&C that put you at a disadvantage against the manufacturer, I'll show you ten fairies, a unicorn, and the herald of darkness.
My grandmother has a Philips dumb TV that doesn't have any network connectivity and it still showed a click-through T&C. If you can't get something like that in your region, ship from the EU, they're still sold here.
My computer was built from pieces of other computers, to which I installed linux and never had to agree to anything. Now show me those ten fairies, the unicorn, and the herald of darkness please...
You agreed to a lot of stuff just by installing Linux and the userspace. Even the MIT license has a limitation of liability clause - if the maintainer published malicious code (like
node-ipcon NPM that would nuke the computer if it had a Russian IP), you'd have a difficult time bringing that to court.We just usually don't care about it because it's not as disruptive as a big corpo's legal goatse, and FOSS maintainers tend to be better people than corporate lawyers.
The terms of linux don't come into play unless I try to re-use some other licensed code to make a profit, and that would still fall under copyright law rather than any kind of terms&services clause. Installing a piece of software doesn't constitute an agreement unless there are clear terms given at the beginning of the installation (and even then it has been pretty questionable in court cases). There was nothing presented to me to agree to during the installation and I've never once been asked to agree to anything during the installation of any software on my computer. There's no need for something like this in most linux software other than the standard disclaimer that it comes with no warranty. Still not anything I had to click to agree to, it just happens to be on the websites for the distributions.
Even if you want to try and pretend that I somehow agreed so some nonsense conditions by installing linux, it still doesn't meet your conditions of putting myself at a disadvantage to the manufacturer. Surely you're not trying to suggest that my "disadvantage" is that I can't take a group to court for my own failure to use software which was freely given and distributed, and of which very little was even written by the distribution maintainers? That would be as absurd as claiming that I had to agree to an EULA before installing my operating system. Hell I don't even agree to collecting data about package management on my system.
Scrapyard PCs for the win!
(Written on a used dell with a replaced hard drive and a fedora install.)
Whew, that inter-continental shipping is going to be rough, but I've had to pay it before. Thanks for the advice!
I just bought a Roku smart TV and the first time I powered it on, it asked if I wanted to enable smart features by connecting to the Internet. I said no and it functions like a dumb TV now. There are a couple brands that still make dumb TVs but they are all fairly small and not great quality. Much better off researching which smart TVs can be easily disabled.
This is the point that I've been stuck on. There doesn't seem to be clear, easily available, documentation on which models those are. However, I have been able to find many ramble-ly "old man yells at cloud" forum & social media posts (You know, like this one!) when a model doesn't allow it.
I've yet to run across a smart TV that I couldn't just use as a dumb TV by NEVER CONNECTING IT TO WIFI. Literally NEVER connect it to WiFi. You will never have this issue. You don't need a list of models, because there isn't a TV that won't function as a TV if it's never connected to WiFi.
Do you understand now?
Any of the ones I’ve tried require no additional interaction to change inputs and adjust video settings. If they’re not connected and there isn’t an open network to join, they can’t download updates or anything. They might try to get you to sign in or whatever but you can just back out of those windows and use it like a normal TV. This includes Vizio, Samsung, element, and LG TVs I’ve owned/used