How do you feel about "Using hot girls to sell things" type of marketing?

Dude...you want to throw people in prison for ADVERTISING, one of the most normal human activities. Only a psychopathic retard could ever want such a thing. No one with a shred of intelligence or morality would agree with you.

I already refuted everything you said. You're just too inept to notice.

If someone tried that shit in my country, that would be the last straw that brings back public executions. We are not tolerating monsters like you and advertising will always be perfectly legal here.

Filthy. Fucking. Liar. You have no concept of individual liberty and rights.


No, I am for liberty for all, including not letting the government control the decisions of private businesses. (Especially not to such an extreme extent that they wouldn't even be able to advertise and make any money.) You do not have the right to dictate how private businesses are run, especially when you don't even own or work for them. Consumers have a right to choose what to buy. (Or not buy.) Not being able to control private businesses is not a violation of consumer rights; that is an imaginary so-called "right" that never existed. The consumer rights you believe in are not rights at all; they're nothing more than tyranny. Don't talk about rights when you want to imprison people for advertising their own businesses, scumbag.


If you don't like the product, don't buy it! Most fridges don't even have smartscreens. This is a non-issue.


It is every person's right to start a business and advertise it. There is nothing wrong with that and you don't get to decide how they advertise.

The fact that you regard people who advertise their own businesses in the same manner as murderers and rapists is deeply concerning.

You have no argument, and you know it. You want to commit VIOLENCE and unimaginable oppression against people and businesses who never did anything to physically harm you or violate your rights in any way. (I'm not talking about imaginary rights you think you should have over them, but every person's right to be free from aggression.)


That's not "basic consumer protection" at all. You do not have the right to force a business to supply you with everything required to fix a product. If you want to fix it yourself, that is your responsibility. (Although plenty of businesses will voluntarily help you out with that.)

You already have the natural right to repair things...but, as I explained, if you do so in a way that voids the warranty, that means you forfeit the privilege of having the manufacturer fix (or replace) it for you at no cost. (Aside from shipping fees.)

Some product designs are legally protected business secrets, however. You never had the right to know those secrets. If you want full control, the only way is to design your own products.


You agreed to the terms when signing up. If you want something that is easier to cancel, it is your responsibility to find that through due diligence.

You most certainly did not. You didn't even address some of the things I said at all. I refuted everything you said line by line. You are totally delusional.

Well then...since negotiations have broken down, I'll put it this way: If anyone somehow successfully attempts to outlaw advertising in the United States, the American people will brutally slaughter them. We're not helpless little pansies and will not tolerate having our freedoms destroyed.

I'm not sure why you think I want a dystopian world, but I want the opposite: a prosperous world where people are free to make their own decisions and only the most serious criminals like murderers are punished by the state.

That does not represent my ideals at all. You're letting your imagination run wild.

I advocate a free market where regular people can easily start their own businesses...not megacorporations wielding the power of the state to enforce a stifled market that prevents countless small businesses from even starting.

I oppose aggression, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "trample on others" schtick from.

Look at you, the anti-free-market guy, scolding me for not being free-market enough. lmao


Not at all. I support your right to do whatever repairs you desire on things you bought.

What I do *not* support is what you probably mean by that phrase: having the government force businesses to facilitate that. If the company voluntarily decides to help you out with it, that's fine. The latter is how a free market works; the former is not. "Right to repair" is anti-free-market at its core. You just didn't think things through.

A free market is literally when businesses are free to operate in the way they choose, and if prospective customers don't like how they do things, they can choose not to buy their products and opt for something else instead. On the other hand, the more the government controls how businesses are run, the less free the market is.


That's not necessarily true. You can always repair it yourself if you learn how and obtain the right tools. But the manufacturer is not obligated to provide you with the tools and so on. That is your responsibility.

There are also safety, security and liability issues involved with so-called right to repair proposals.

It is the prerogative of a company to operate their own authorized repair service and set the terms of their warranty. If you don't like how a particular business does things, you don't have to buy their product and can choose an alternate one that suits your needs. There are plenty of products designed to be repaired by the end user.


Depends on the product. Even with expensive products I've owned, sending them in for repairs after the warranty had expired didn't cost much. And during the warranty periods, getting repairs or replacements was free. Sometimes they even covered the shipping cost both ways.


But you do own it. It is legally your property after you have purchased it.

Ownership does not always mean full control, though. Many products and services include terms of use you agreed to upon buying or joining.

A free market does not mean some fantastical notion of "every product that exists must give me full control and function the way I want it to because I say so"; it means you get to choose from a variety of options. If you want more options, then join the side of the free market and stop trying to control how other people's businesses are run.


I explained this already too:


I don't know of any subscriptions that are "borderline impossibly difficult" to cancel.


IP does not pose a barrier to entry, because it only protects very specific versions of things. There are endless other variations you can make of the same type of product.


You worded this ambiguously, so freel free to elaborate on what you meant by "protect it from other citizens."

No, you just understand very little about liberty, rights, business, economics, etc.

Liberty and ownership does not mean you get to force companies to do your bidding. (I think you're being more manipulative than most of them.)

When you buy a product, it is under the terms of that company. Don't like the product? Don't like the terms? Buy a different product! If you had even the slightest understanding, you would already know this.

If the terms were explained before the sale (often found in the terms and conditions section on a website, and sometimes in the description of the product), there is no false advertisement.

I covered that you do own the product because it is legally in your possession after purchase...but products are designed to be used a certain way. If you want to do something else with it, but want to legally force the company to help you with all of your whims, like figuring out how to modify it, that's not gonna happen and it is entirely your responsibility, unless the company voluntarily decides to assist you.

This whole "I don't own it" bit was never true. Ownership simply isn't what you think it means.

If anything, being responsible for your own modifications is proof of ownership. One could even argue that the more a company is separated from a consumer after the sale, the more the buyer owns it. (But again, legally speaking, ownership just means you are in possession of an item after lawfully acquiring it. It does not mean you own the rights to technology companies develop or anything like that.)

Some electronics have no user serviceable parts because it's dangerous for random customers to tamper with them. Even with schematics and instructions, people could get electrocuted and then the company could face lawsuits. But they ultimately can't stop you, and all that is for purposes of the warranty, liability and so on. Mind you, I am a big fan of modifying electronics and have done crazy things with audio equipment.

There is no renting or undoing of the sale; you just made that up with no explanation. If you were renting it, you would be paying to borrow it every month (or whatever) and would have to return it once you stopped paying. If they undid the sale, you would receive a refund. That is what those words actually mean. Instead of complaining about the meaning of words being eroded, you should make an effort to not erode them yourself.

Without right to repair laws, no one's rights are violated here. With right to repair laws, company's rights are violated and there cannot be a free market.

Don't tell me about what's wrong when you want to imprison people for advertising, idiot.

No, you just understand very little about liberty, rights, business, economics, etc.

Liberty and ownership does not mean you get to force companies to do your bidding. (I think you're being more manipulative than most of them.)

When you buy a product, it is under the terms of that company. Don't like the product? Don't like the terms? Buy a different product! If you had even the slightest understanding, you would already know this.

If the terms were explained before the sale (often found in the terms and conditions section on a website, and sometimes in the description of the product), there is no false advertisement.

I covered that you do own the product because it is legally in your possession after purchase...but products are designed to be used a certain way. If you want to do something else with it, but want to legally force the company to help you with all of your whims, like figuring out how to modify it, that's not gonna happen and it is entirely your responsibility, unless the company voluntarily decides to assist you.

This whole "I don't own it" bit was never true. Ownership simply isn't what you think it means.

If anything, being responsible for your own modifications is proof of ownership. One could even argue that the more a company is separated from a consumer after the sale, the more the buyer owns it. (But again, legally speaking, ownership just means you are in possession of an item after lawfully acquiring it. It does not mean you own the rights to technology companies develop or anything like that.)

Some electronics have no user serviceable parts because it's dangerous for random customers to tamper with them. Even with schematics and instructions, people could get electrocuted and then the company could face lawsuits. But they ultimately can't stop you, and all that is for purposes of the warranty, liability and so on. Mind you, I am a big fan of modifying electronics and have done crazy things with audio equipment.

There is no renting or undoing of the sale; you just made that up with no explanation. If you were renting it, you would be paying to borrow it every month (or whatever) and would have to return it once you stopped paying. If they undid the sale, you would receive a refund. That is what those words actually mean. Instead of complaining about the meaning of words being eroded, you should make an effort to not erode them yourself.

Without right to repair laws, no one's rights are violated here. With right to repair laws, company's rights are violated and there cannot be a free market.

Don't tell me about what's wrong when you want to imprison people for advertising, idiot.

You have demonstrated many times during this discussion that you have a terrible understanding of these things. I've been showning you how wrong you are this entire time, and you either ignore what I say or twist my words to suit your purposes.


A great way to increase trust is by having a free market that naturally and continually results in better products at lower prices. You don't want that. You want the government to control things and even outlaw advertising. Utterly ridiculous.


Your opinion of who bad actors are is not credible. You think anyone who advertises should be punished!


What of it? I never said anything about companies not being required to honor warranties that were not voided. (Although they are generally the ones who set the terms of the warranty.)


How am I wrong on what ownership means? And what does that have to do with renting from a landlord?


What of it? I stated facts. This "self own" is only inside your imagination. You're just listing a bunch of things (like "freedom" and "the safety argument") with no explanation and expecting people to blindly believe your lies about me.


Prove it.


When companies design technology, it is their right to design it how they choose. You never had a right to force a company to design their product how you want them to. Again, if you don't like a product, simply buy a different one. I would never buy an iPhone, for numerous reasons. I avoid the situation by not doing business with them. I don't have the psychopathic compulsion to want to control other people's businesses like you do.

Also, I seriously hope you are not claiming I did not know about this well-known fact about some phones.


They are licensing out the technology they developed and reserve the right to make updates. That is commonplace. You never owned the technology itself; you only owned the device you bought.

I do think that if a device is bricked after an update, people should be able to seek compensation, up to and including suing the manufacturer.


You claim this without a shred of proof. List the words you think I misunderstand, prove I don't understand them, and tell me what they really mean. If you can't do that, you're just blowing hot air.

But for the record, I understand all of this perfectly and am on a much higher level than you in every imaginable way.

The only thing I don't understand sometimes is the ambiguous drivel you spout. If you say vague shit, don't blame others for not guessing what you meant.

You can already sue companies.


Generally speaking, you, a random person, cannot dictate what companies design and how they design them. I didn't mean no one can control what companies do under any circumstance.

This is what I'm talking about with you twisting my words and failing to properly read what I say, and then having the gall to say I'm the one who doesn't know what words or concepts mean.


Being able to legally destroy something does not necessarily mean you own it, though, and that is not the legal definition of ownership. Bricking a phone does not technically destroy it either, since no physical damage was done to it and its functionality can be restored.

Purchasing was only "supposed" to work that way for simple things. For complex devices, companies can license out their tech and retain some control over it. So yes, in some cases, even when you legally own an item, you may not fully own every aspect of it if it involves things like licensed software. Don't get me wrong...I hate phones in so many ways. I've always been a computer nerd and favor open source software.