Clippy Campaign: Difference between revisions

Line 76:

*Companies can lock users out of a device they already paid for until a novel subscription fee is paid (tantamount to ransomware). The example offered is the smart-home company [[Futurehome_Smarthub_Mandatory_Subscription_Fee|Futurehome pushing out a firmware update that disabled the smart-home devices of every customer]]; devices could only be re-enabled if the customer signed up for a new subscription that was not previously required.<ref name="futurehome ransomware">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNuZ3BjT7IU |title=Smarthome company goes bankrupt, new owner ransoms everyone's house: $5000 bounty to crack firmware! |date=2025-07-16}}</ref><ref name="xda blog on futurehome">{{Cite web |url=https://www.xda-developers.com/futurehome-important-take-back-control-smart-home/ |title=Futurehome proves why it's more important than ever to take back control of your smart home |date=2025-07-31}}</ref>

*The comments sections of many [[YouTube]] channels frequently contain malicious comments that normalize sex trafficking, posted by bot accounts.<ref name="first rossmann clippy video" /> Massive botnets create autonomous accounts with profile pictures ostensibly featuring attractive or scantily dressed women, and when their channels are viewed, the user is greeted with links to websites that contain adult content, enticing users to fall for phishing scams.<ref name="lon tv blog on sex bots">{{Cite web |url=https://blog.lon.tv/2025/05/20/my-youtube-channels-comment-section-are-infested-by-bots/ |title=My YouTube Channel’s Comment Section is Infested By Bots! |date=2025-05-20}}</ref>. Such comments are extremely pervasive, often showing up just seconds after a video is uploaded, seemingly only ever deleted by the manual review of the owner of the video, rather than by server-side action; their extent is met contrariwise by reports of legitimate comments from real users being completely censored (not being visible to anyone other than the poster of the comment), even including the user who uploaded the video itself.{{Citation needed}} Rossmann points out in the aforementioned video that some of these bot accounts can bypass the filters by using pictures that are not actually of scantily dressed women, but can so appear to be when the image is small, such as when it is beside a comment; only when it is examined more closely, can it be shown to be an image of something else, such as a cat next to some pillows.<ref name="first rossmann clippy video" />

*Companies can deny a user's [[right to repair]] something damaged in transit (i.e., not by the user), even when the user is willing to purchase needed parts from them, and then threaten legal action for asking them about the decision. The example offered is [[Cami Research accusing a user of harassment]] who was very professional over the phone, outright stating that because it values profit over users being able to repair products which they already purchased, it does not want customers to be able to repair them, because if they repair the unit they already have, they would not buy a new one.<ref name="cami research violates law">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K1zi66IE0k |title=Cami Research blatantly violates Oregon Right to Repair Law, Oregon DOJ does nothing. |date=2025-06-21}}</ref>

*Companies can deny a user's [[right to repair]] something damaged in transit (i.e., not by the user), even when the user is willing to purchase needed parts from them, and then threaten legal action for asking them about the decision. The example offered is [[Cami Research|Cami Research accusing a user of harassment]] who was very professional over the phone, outright stating that because it values profit over users being able to repair products which they already purchased, it does not want customers to be able to repair them, because if they repair the unit they already have, they would not buy a new one.<ref name="cami research violates law">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K1zi66IE0k |title=Cami Research blatantly violates Oregon Right to Repair Law, Oregon DOJ does nothing. |date=2025-06-21}}</ref>

*Companies can conduct psychological experiments on their customers without their consent, without legal repercussions. The example offered is [[Tado]], a company that makes smart thermostats, which added a paywall to their devices, demanding a subscription fee, after customers had already bought their product (where the terms of the sale at the time of purchase indicated that there was no subscription fee). The paywall was actually fake; its purpose was to see how many customers would willingly go along with the additional payments. In essence, the company threatened to remove a service to induce a behavior on their customers.<ref name="tado thermostat experiment">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfAchfFXghc |title=Thermostat maker performs psychological experiments on customers: never buy Tado products |date=2025-02-21}}</ref> This is another example of retroactive amendments to the terms of products and services already sold in completion (see first point above).

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *Companies can lock users out of a device they already paid for until a novel subscription fee is paid (tantamount to ransomware). The example offered is the smart-home company [[Futurehome_Smarthub_Mandatory_Subscription_Fee|Futurehome pushing out a firmware update that disabled the smart-home devices of every customer]]; devices could only be re-enabled if the customer signed up for a new subscription that was not previously required.<ref name="futurehome ransomware">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNuZ3BjT7IU |title=Smarthome company goes bankrupt, new owner ransoms everyone's house: $5000 bounty to crack firmware! |date=2025-07-16}}</ref><ref name="xda blog on futurehome">{{Cite web |url=https://www.xda-developers.com/futurehome-important-take-back-control-smart-home/ |title=Futurehome proves why it's more important than ever to take back control of your smart home |date=2025-07-31}}</ref>
 *The comments sections of many [[YouTube]] channels frequently contain malicious comments that normalize sex trafficking, posted by bot accounts.<ref name="first rossmann clippy video" /> Massive botnets create autonomous accounts with profile pictures ostensibly featuring attractive or scantily dressed women, and when their channels are viewed, the user is greeted with links to websites that contain adult content, enticing users to fall for phishing scams.<ref name="lon tv blog on sex bots">{{Cite web |url=https://blog.lon.tv/2025/05/20/my-youtube-channels-comment-section-are-infested-by-bots/ |title=My YouTube Channel’s Comment Section is Infested By Bots! |date=2025-05-20}}</ref>. Such comments are extremely pervasive, often showing up just seconds after a video is uploaded, seemingly only ever deleted by the manual review of the owner of the video, rather than by server-side action; their extent is met contrariwise by reports of legitimate comments from real users being completely censored (not being visible to anyone other than the poster of the comment), even including the user who uploaded the video itself.{{Citation needed}} Rossmann points out in the aforementioned video that some of these bot accounts can bypass the filters by using pictures that are not actually of scantily dressed women, but can so appear to be when the image is small, such as when it is beside a comment; only when it is examined more closely, can it be shown to be an image of something else, such as a cat next to some pillows.<ref name="first rossmann clippy video" />
-*Companies can deny a user's [[right to repair]] something damaged in transit (i.e., not by the user), even when the user is willing to purchase needed parts from them, and then threaten legal action for asking them about the decision. The example offered is [[Cami Research accusing a user of harassment]] who was very professional over the phone, outright stating that because it values profit over users being able to repair products which they already purchased, it does not want customers to be able to repair them, because if they repair the unit they already have, they would not buy a new one.<ref name="cami research violates law">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K1zi66IE0k |title=Cami Research blatantly violates Oregon Right to Repair Law, Oregon DOJ does nothing. |date=2025-06-21}}</ref>
+*Companies can deny a user's [[right to repair]] something damaged in transit (i.e., not by the user), even when the user is willing to purchase needed parts from them, and then threaten legal action for asking them about the decision. The example offered is [[Cami Research|Cami Research accusing a user of harassment]] who was very professional over the phone, outright stating that because it values profit over users being able to repair products which they already purchased, it does not want customers to be able to repair them, because if they repair the unit they already have, they would not buy a new one.<ref name="cami research violates law">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K1zi66IE0k |title=Cami Research blatantly violates Oregon Right to Repair Law, Oregon DOJ does nothing. |date=2025-06-21}}</ref>
 *Companies can conduct psychological experiments on their customers without their consent, without legal repercussions. The example offered is [[Tado]], a company that makes smart thermostats, which added a paywall to their devices, demanding a subscription fee, after customers had already bought their product (where the terms of the sale at the time of purchase indicated that there was no subscription fee). The paywall was actually fake; its purpose was to see how many customers would willingly go along with the additional payments. In essence, the company threatened to remove a service to induce a behavior on their customers.<ref name="tado thermostat experiment">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfAchfFXghc |title=Thermostat maker performs psychological experiments on customers: never buy Tado products |date=2025-02-21}}</ref> This is another example of retroactive amendments to the terms of products and services already sold in completion (see first point above).