Privacy also seems to be one of those things people claim to care about, but in fact are actually reluctant to do anything about. Easy, low-tech privacy measures:
- leave your phone at home most of the time.
- don't buy a smart TV or other smart devices
- don't use social media
- etc.
None of these measures are bullet-proof, but they are relatively low-cost and don't require much expertise. These are much, much more likely to be things consumers complain about than things that consumers are actually ready to do something about. I think it's clear that consumers ALSO do not understand privacy, but I'd also suggest that they don't care very much. If they cared, there would be more a market for privacy.
"Don't buy a smart TV" is stupid out of touch and tonedeaf advice.
There are no non-smart TVs. You cannot buy one. Your only alternatives are to not buy a TV period, or go to great lengths to firewall your new smart TV.
Yes, non-smart displays exist, but they are not sold to consumers, nor at a price consumers can afford.
This is one of those prime examples of how the idea of "vote with your wallet" is a fantasy. Consumers are not in any way in control of the market.
There is no possible way to protest smart TVs when the only options for a new TV include spyware. Your only possible move is to not participate in the market, which then summarily ignores you.
Similarly, existing without a smartphone in today's society is largely not possible. You can't even park in many cities without an app.
I think it's clear that you don't understand the problems being discussed and are just blithely assuming that deflecting blame onto individuals is a reasonable position. It isn't. It's moronic and unconsidered.
Just as an addendum, I think you can still vote with your wallet, even in a world where there are truly no dumb TVs. The vote would be "do not buy a TV." It's an option, and isn't even that big of a deal. As another commenter noted, you can watch TV on your laptop with an ad-blocker, but you can also just read a book. I don't mean this to be rude or combative -- I'm quite serious here. TVs are luxury items in the narrow sense that they're not necessary for anything; they're just leisure. Because of that, it should be possible to completely avoid it. Take up hiking, learn the guitar, read more books, join a social club, etc. No one needs a smart TV.
Crucially, someone who owns a smart TV has implicitly made a claim "the entertainment of TV is more important to me than privacy." That's all I'm saying. I explicitly did NOT mention vehicle privacy because most people do not have a choice about whether they own a vehicle. They need it for work, child care, etc. It is possible to avoid smart vehicles, but it's getting more difficult, and I suspect it will be impossible in the future. (even with a dumb car, there can be license plate scanners in a lot of locations)
It's cheaper than the 55'' I bought a few years ago, is 4K, which mine isn't, and is roughly on par with what's for sale on the Smart TV side of things.
I just bought a non-smart TV at a yard sale for $10. I wasn't even out looking, it just happened to be there. It works great.
Much scarier, there are "smart monitors" coming which are just computer monitors but will display ads to users. Once that happens, and is wholly unavoidable, I'm honestly finished with computers for good.
As an aside, I have a very clear understanding of privacy issues. If there's a particular issue you'd like to dig into, I'd be happy to talk it out with you. I'll bet we agree more than you think.
But isn’t that the case because no one cares? If the demographic of people purposefully wanting non-smart TVs was large enough, someone would step in and offer a non-smart TV to make some money. The only reason this doesn’t happen is that it wouldn’t work because not enough people would buy it. Basically, the market already anticipates how people would vote with their wallets and has determined that smartdevice-haters are so fringe that they don’t matter.
Re: Smart TVs. An old laptop running a browser with an ad blocker and some fancy controller setup (perhaps a wireless multi-button mouse or a specialized remote control) can get you way more privacy (and the sanity of a mostly zero-ad experience, just the occasional in-video affiliate ad) and makes whatever you watch a lot smarter, since you are the one doing the searching/surfing rather than the advertiser-funded smart TV channels that are specifically smart at advertising to you for profit. You can hook up an HDMI cable to a bigger screen/projector if you're playing stuff for lots of people.
- leave your phone at home most of the time.
- don't buy a smart TV or other smart devices
- don't use social media
- etc.
None of these measures are bullet-proof, but they are relatively low-cost and don't require much expertise. These are much, much more likely to be things consumers complain about than things that consumers are actually ready to do something about. I think it's clear that consumers ALSO do not understand privacy, but I'd also suggest that they don't care very much. If they cared, there would be more a market for privacy.