alt Hacker NewsI don't think customers need to be protected from themselves. If they don't like the hardware but buy it anyways because they really like the game, that's a choice. And I feel that when we're dealing with luxury goods, we should give consumers very broad discretion to vote with their money.
Replies
Rather than using the coloring of "protected from themselves" I prefer to view consumer protection boards as a collectivized bargaining unit for the consumers as a whole. Similar to unions the deals they strike won't be maximally optimal for all workers but a good consumer protection agency can balance the concerns of consumers and bargain as a single entity with the company. Otherwise the imbalance of bargaining power makes it extremely difficult for change to be enacted.
As a regulatory decision, this isn't about protecting the consumer. It's about preventing an externality being handled by all of society, specifically reducing e-waste.
Companies like these enjoy artificial monopolies thanks to IP laws. Why don’t we have the freedom to copy their products and make them the way we want?
This is victim blaming. The customer is not the one deciding make the batteries non-removable. This is protection from Nintendo.
"Vote with money" is such a funny talking point in this discussion. It's a metaphor for actual voting, with votes, which the people already did, for politicians who are now protecting their interests. You just don't like corporations being told what to do.