if there was actual choice involved you might have a point but it doesn’t really matter what changes when you don’t have the ability to decline.
but for the record I believe this update removed your right to legal recourse and forces you through binding arbitration, so yes, this one does have something worth being pissed about.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 8 months ago
If you can’t see that the issue is that the TOS could include anything the company wants and that disagreeing means the device I already paid for is intentionally bricked then I don’t know what to tell you.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 months ago
They’ve always been able to do that; it’s often the very first fucking paragraph of a TOS. If you’re just now noticing it I don’t know what to tell you.
harmsy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
What flavor is that boot you’re licking? Must be pretty tasty.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 months ago
I don’t agree with the practice; but at this point it’s not like you can do shit about it. It wasn’t the point the article was making, either, which is what I have issue with; The shoddy journalism.
ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I have a great business idea - sell a roku-like device for half the price and a .99 cent subscription fee. Then when I’ve captured the market I force them to accept draconian new terms that cost way more or I brick the device. By then it’s too late and I can suck all the money out of it from the people that can’t switch.
And if they don’t like it? Too bad; they signed away their rights to sue.
It’s a foolproof plan! As long as I don’t get shot in the street but justifiably angry customers.