Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Editorial guidelines

2025-01-19T07:33:44Z

DrewW: Product recommendations question

== Downside of alternative products being out of scope ==

The risk that companies will astroturf the wiki with product recommendations is a very real concern. I wonder if there's a balance though that can prevent astroturfing while keeping consumers informed. The very first thing a consumer will think when reading any of these anti-consumer stories is "alright well how can I avoid this?". It's easy in some cases. If I search "repairable laptop" or "repairable phone" then I get earnest & valuable results. If I search "3d printer without cloud services", then all I get are articles, videos, and Reddit posts about the controversy of the 3D printer manufacturer who is further leaning into cloud services & none of the 3D printers without cloud integration that I know of as a hobbyist 3D printer. Astroturfing is also a huge issue outside of the wiki: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnA08Wwh9v4 it's routine] for even reviewing websites & journalist websites that were once reputable to have "10 best X" guides that are just full of product placement from the highest bidder. Even as a power user, I have sometimes spent weeks tracking down reputable alternatives for hardware / software, carefully avoiding obscure ads that would trick the layman, let alone how difficult it would be for the average consumer. The wiki mission is to provide consumers "information they need to recognize and fight back against new forms of exploitation", but if all we do is give examples of anti-consumer behavior without the information necessary to locate alternatives that do respect their rights as consumers, are we truly providing them the information they need to fight back against consumer exploitation?

I don't think it will be easy, but I wonder if it's viable to rectify this in at least a narrow facet by relying on a small group of known, trusted (in the same way as moderators) domain experts to curate peer-reviewed alternatives with extensive & reproducible/verifiable testing (e.g. sniffing traffic to make sure a "LAN-only" device isn't phoning home). And probably not on specific company pages, but on broader "Laptops", "Mobile Phones", "3D printers", pages. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mission statement

2025-01-19T07:04:38Z

DrewW: Typo

== Concern about mission statement ==

The mission statement itself is a bit scaring. It's the first page to see and could turn away people that try to look up something in the future. This article has to move at some point to a more inviting page, maybe not in the next time tho. [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, but until we are aiming to attract readers rather than contributors, I'm happy for us to keep it as is. It'll likely be a while before the wiki is useful to a casual reader [[User:Keith|Keith]]

== Thoughts on archiving sources ==

It should be mentioned that this wiki could be used as an index for solicitation with copyright requests, or through some other method, to take down at any point any of the sources listed on each page. Those sources, then, should at least be checked to make sure that they have been captured by the Internet Archive, or through some other service. I think it'd be tedious and unhelpful for every source to directly link to an archive page, but there should be some kind of policy to make sure that these sources are archived. [[User:Liana]] ([[User talk:Liana|talk]]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection? ==

"A company remotely disabled software of consumers who posted bad online reviews" and "All consumer devices with needless cloud connection were bricked when a company went out of business" would be within scope for the wiki at the very top of the gradient of badness, but where along the gradient do these stories fall out of scope?

# A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car
# A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware
# Same as B with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) to force users to buy the software subscription
# Same as B, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)
#* Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick
# Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again
#* This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago
# Same as E except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership
# A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business
#* It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase
# "Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?
#* Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)

These all "take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''." in the words of the mission statement, but have become increasingly accepted and "fair" with the erosion of consumer ownership over time. They are not even necessarily a "revocation" of ownership because the consumer was never provided the opportunity of ownership in the first place. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 06:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mission statement

2025-01-19T07:01:35Z

DrewW: Formatting

== Concern about mission statement ==

The mission statement itself is a bit scaring. It's the first page to see and could turn away people that try to look up something in the future. This article has to move at some point to a more inviting page, maybe not in the next time tho. [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, but until we are aiming to attract readers rather than contributors, I'm happy for us to keep it as is. It'll likely be a while before the wiki is useful to a casual reader [[User:Keith|Keith]]

== Thoughts on archiving sources ==

It should be mentioned that this wiki could be used as an index for solicitation with copyright requests, or through some other method, to take down at any point any of the sources listed on each page. Those sources, then, should at least be checked to make sure that they have been captured by the Internet Archive, or through some other service. I think it'd be tedious and unhelpful for every source to directly link to an archive page, but there should be some kind of policy to make sure that these sources are archived. [[User:Liana]] ([[User talk:Liana|talk]]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection? ==

"A company remotely disabled software of consumers who posted bad online reviews" and "All consumer devices with needless cloud connection were bricked when a company went out of business" would be within scope for the wiki at the very top of the gradient of badness, but where along the gradient do these stories fall out of scope?

# A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car
# A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware
# Same as B with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) at once to force users to buy the software subscription
# Same as B, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)
#* Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick
# Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again
#* This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago
# Same as E except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership
# A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business
#* It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase
# "Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?
#* Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)

These all "take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''." in the words of the mission statement, but have become increasingly accepted and "fair" with the erosion of consumer ownership over time. They are not even necessarily a "revocation" of ownership because the consumer was never provided the opportunity of ownership in the first place. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 06:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mission statement

2025-01-19T06:58:50Z

DrewW: Question on ownership scope

== Concern about mission statement ==

The mission statement itself is a bit scaring. It's the first page to see and could turn away people that try to look up something in the future. This article has to move at some point to a more inviting page, maybe not in the next time tho. [[User:Tpat90|Tpat90]] ([[User talk:Tpat90|talk]]) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, but until we are aiming to attract readers rather than contributors, I'm happy for us to keep it as is. It'll likely be a while before the wiki is useful to a casual reader [[User:Keith|Keith]]

== Thoughts on archiving sources ==

It should be mentioned that this wiki could be used as an index for solicitation with copyright requests, or through some other method, to take down at any point any of the sources listed on each page. Those sources, then, should at least be checked to make sure that they have been captured by the Internet Archive, or through some other service. I think it'd be tedious and unhelpful for every source to directly link to an archive page, but there should be some kind of policy to make sure that these sources are archived. [[User:Liana]] ([[User talk:Liana|talk]]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== What is the line in the sand for "new" consumer protection? ==

"A company remotely disabled software of consumers who posted bad online reviews" and "All consumer devices with needless cloud connection were bricked when a company went out of business" would be within scope for the wiki at the very top of the gradient of badness, but where along the gradient do these stories fall out of scope?

A. A car manufacturer sells a heated seat subscription even though the consumer already purchased the hardware with their car, but the manufacturer is upfront & honest about it when they purchase the car
B. A manufacturer that sells hardware also provides the software necessary to use said hardware, but it requires a subscription service lest the hardware becomes a brick which they are transparent about when purchasing the hardware
C. Same as B with some free functionality in the software, but the software (for the hardware you already purchased and own) is designed to be frustrating to use (subjective guess) at once to force users to buy the software subscription
D. Same as B, but the software is a perpetual purchase at least (though still the hardware will be a brick without purchasing the software)
- Does it make a difference between how "reasonable" the price is (subjective)? E.g. $100 purchase vs $5000 to keep your $5000 hardware from turning into a brick
E. Company which sold yearly releases for software that users would own in perpetuity (think Photoshop CS6 or pre-365 Microsoft Office) changes to a subscription model for new releases going forward so that now users who relied on their software can never "own" it again
- This is "okay" in today's climate due to the gradual erosion of consumer ownership, but would have been an outrage 40+ years ago
F. Same as E except the company never sold perpetual licenses in the first place and is just riding on the coattails of other companies which have eroded consumer ownership
G. A consumer device has a cloud connection, which hasn't yet been bricked because the company is still in business
- It would be fair game once consumer devices are bricked, but do we have to wait? Is ''any'' cloud connection which can result in a loss of functionality the consumer paid for fair game even before it is lost? I imagine consumers would want to know that a device they plan on purchasing is at risk before they make the purchase
H. "Schematics or Die": if the device is fully offline and cannot be affected by the manufacturer post-sale but they refuse to provide schematics to owners upon request, is that "intentionally [creating] obstacles to repair"?
- Does it change if the reason is because they don't own all of the IP and can't legally release schematics? (would we even know the difference between whether this was the case or they were intentionally making it harder to repair if they did not directly tell us?)

These all "take away the consumer's right of ''ownership''." in the words of the mission statement, but have become increasingly accepted and "fair" with the erosion of consumer ownership over time. They are not even necessarily a "revocation" of ownership because the consumer was never provided the opportunity of ownership in the first place. [[User:DrewW]] ([[User talk:DrewW|talk]]) 06:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:DrewW

2025-01-19T06:14:10Z

DrewW: Created page with "US-based industry software engineer & game developer. I reverse engineer and 3D print for a hobby"

US-based industry software engineer & game developer. I reverse engineer and 3D print for a hobby