[hnlmorg]

Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.

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.

[j_w]

If somebody "needs" a TV then they might "need" some hobbies.

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.

[hnlmorg]

What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.

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.

[rbanffy]

> What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.

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

[hnlmorg]

Which is ostensibly the same thing

[rbanffy]

You are not forced to comply with the suggestion.

[hnlmorg]

If you must argue semantics, then…

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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictate

[j_w]

Replying to this comment since clearly the point is misunderstood.

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.

[hnlmorg]

> The last three are clearly real needs

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.

[acheron]

Evergreen

https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesn...

[j_w]

I have a TV though.

[Cpoll]

Sure, but you're just choosing hobbies for people. TVs are just one example here. If your hobby is 3D printing, you might've gotten screwed by Autodesk's subscription changes.

[nicoburns]

Yeah, and it's not just non-essentials. You could easily get screwed by your food production supply chain, or your housing provider.

[j_w]

TV can be a hobby, but hobbies typically have actual engagement from the hobbyist. There are a lot of people whom watching television/movies is a real hobby, and for those people you can tell that's the case.

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.

[hnlmorg]

When I was in my 20s I used to hold this belief as well. And as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised those opinions weren’t because TV viewers were wasting their lives, it was because there was so much I wanted to do with my time that I was scared of wasting my life. I was actually getting angry because I couldn’t pack everything I wanted to do in a day.

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.

[claysmithr]

Sounds like they need God

[zahlman]

> Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.

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.

[hnlmorg]

It really depends on the individual. I barely watch any TV and have been like this for the 30+ years that I’ve been old enough to own a display. For a while, I did go fully in with media centres. Even running XBMC on an original Xbox. But I honestly just don’t really care for video content all that much regardless of how it’s delivered.

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.

[rbanffy]

> 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.

[hnlmorg]

But that’s not the same thing as saying “people shouldn’t own a TV and instead find themselves a hobby”. Which is the original comment that people objected to.

[listenallyall]

Lol, your position is, don't watch tv, just watch YouTube. That's not really a radical shift.

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.

[rbanffy]

> Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.

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.

[hnlmorg]

Yes, we’ve all done that. I mentioned earlier about how I used XBMC on an original Xbox.

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.

[rbanffy]

> But we aren’t normal people

It's both a blessing and a curse.