HN Explorer

Ask HN: How I buy a TV that don't show porn ads to kids?

46 points by speeder ↗ HN
So I bought a LG C1 OLED tv... It has that shiny new WebOS 6 that seemly is plagued with ads even if you disable all permissions, and I heard reports it is circunventing pi-hole too (by putting ads on same server as content you actually want).

The Brazillian version of it insists in advertising content available on "Looke", with little filtering, it has no shame in just pasting there posters of splatter horror movies or adult stuff, for example ads for a documentary about Rocco or another named just "Porn" with a giant naked ass on the poster.

Anyone know how I buy a dumb TV? One that does not need internet, at all? Or if it does need internet to update its firmware, it won't spy on me or fill stuff with ads?

OLED TVs aren't cheap either, and I am very disappointed that even paying a ton of money I am still the product.

134 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] thread
codevark
Sceptre makes a 55" non-smart TV that only costs $400. Not OLED, but pretty nice.
memco
I got the 65” last year: took some adjustment to get the sound to be okay as the defaults were pretty bad. Otherwise it’s decent.
dplgk
I bought 2 of these from Walmart for $200 each. I was surprised at how decent the image quality is.
ianai
Does it need an internet connection to work as a display?
traceroute66
I second this answer.

Stop stressing out, just don't connect the TV to the internet. Job done.

fsflover
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29384092

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29383507

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29382742

cpach
Is there any proof of that happening?
boardwaalk
Tin foil hat stuff, to be honest. Prove it or stop promulgating it.
fsflover
If it's technically possible, it will happen, I believe. Even if it's not the case yet. This is the curse of non-free software, as predicted by Stallman.
RealityVoid
Maybe. But first prove the standing allegations.
generalizations
It doesn't do you or anyone else any good to be militantly skeptical that people with opportunity sometimes act maliciously.

Also, this looks like the origin of the anecdote: https://web.archive.org/web/20200519095006/https://old.reddi...

gruez
>It doesn't do you or anyone else any good to be militantly skeptical

To be fair it's a pretty popular meme, almost as popular as "facebook app is listening to you", despite having zero proof behind it. I'd be pretty annoyed if such unproven claims regularly show up in every hn thread about smart TVs.

JohnWhigham
After the past decade of pretty much every conspiracy theory about big tech companies becoming true, are you seriously still calling another marginal thing "tin foil hat stuff"?
gruez
But this is pretty trivial to prove. All you need is set up some sort of router with open wifi, and check the client list. The fact that such proof hasn't showed up despite the anecdotes being around for years should make you very skeptical.

>After the past decade of pretty much every conspiracy theory about big tech companies becoming true

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Retr0id
"[...] The exploit still fires even if the TV is not connected to the internet."

https://twitter.com/David3141593/status/1481993413843161092

kllrnohj
That's the wrong way around. That's the TV receiving an over the air exploit via broadcast TV. Not the TV broadcasting anything that's picked up by anyone, nor is the TV connecting to any form of internet connected anything.
Retr0id
Once the TV is exploited, you can command it to connect to whatever you like, or broadcast whatever wifi/bluetooth data you like, unless the wifi card has been physically ripped out.
kllrnohj
What's your threat model here that has any relevance to the discussion? That your neighbor hacks your TV to connect it to WiFi behind your back to...? Collect analytics?
Retr0id
The remote has a microphone on it, and the TV itself has APIs for capturing screen content. Not really things I'd like to share.

Alternatively, they could just brick the TV.

I agree that it's highly implausible that my neighbor would do either of these things, but they could, if sufficiently motivated.

kllrnohj
But that still doesn't really answer to what's the relevance to this discussion? It's not really a symptom of a smart TV nor the result of ads from aggressive cost cutting.

It's a cool hack, and probably the only conceivable reason I'd ever let a TV take a firmware update, but it's hardly relevant to the topic of whether or not you should let your TV access the internet or whether or not Smart TVs are malicious when denied internet access during setup.

fsflover
> It's not really a symptom of a smart TV

Vulnerability which allows to listen to you is not a symptom of a smart TV? Since when normal TVs have microphones and such vulnerabilities?

durnygbur
TVs have: WiFi chip (software controlled), Ethernet port (physical cable required), HDMI (also used for displaying). It's more complicated than it sounds. Not connecting as in the web browser and crappy app store don't work - sure. Not connecting as in not calling home? hmmm. TVs have become self-perpetuating ad machines.
kllrnohj
It's not complicated at all. During setup when it asks for wifi just hit "skip" and of course don't plug in the Ethernet cable. Ta-da, you now have a dumb TV.
coldpie
I've never heard of a TV showing ads if you do not connect it to the internet via its normal end-user wifi GUI.
fsflover
See also:

What is the best dumb TV? (pointerclicker.com)

674 points by evo_9 on Oct 2, 2020 | 651 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24666968

Ask HN: What’s the best TV to buy?

56 points by colpabar 88 days ago | 90 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29343338

Ask HN: Are there any 4K “dumb” televisions?

436 points by luke2m 84 days ago | 500 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29382643

falcolas
Yup - look for a "commercial monitor" or "digital signage", not a TV these days.
halo37253
There is no good Dumb TV's.

I'm sorry but nearly any dumb TV has crappy brightness and poor black uniformity. I value a good picture, and if you spend any time comparing TV's on RTings you'd know that budget TV's are not worth it. I personally can not justify spending money on a TV that doesn't even have 400nits of brightness in SDR content, and neither should you. I'd be surprised if any non Smart TV has more than 300nits, most are at best 200 or 250.

The only time anyone should justify a shitty TV, is if that is all they can afford. Still do your research, there are cheap TVs out there that are decent for the money.

Like article above doesn't talk about. Sure maybe you like a microwave with two dials and not smart functions as you like it simple. But if you've never used an inverter based microwave packed full of smart tech, you never used a decent microwave. Its a single button press and perfectly cooked/warmed product every time. No cold spots. Sure a dumb microwave is fine, if you like to waste time.

A Dumb TV is no different. Sure it can be great after tossing a Fire TV stick onto it, and added a sound bar. But it still is going to have a budget picture, may have problems with ARC or no ARC at all, Bad menu system, etc.

For a Budget TV you are better off getting a higher end Hisense TV. Which has a bright Picture and runs Android TV.

Cerium
Do you have a recommendation for a good microwave? Mine is at least 15 years old and was bottom shelf when new.
bityard
> The only time anyone should justify a shitty TV, is if that is all they can afford.

Or anyone whose quality of life doesn't revolve around having a fancy televison...

Our household just doesn't watch enough TV to justify a big screen with deep blacks and lots of nits or whatever. We watch MAYBE an hour a week to relax and have some shared laughs. Until recently, our TV was some 37" 720p Walmart black friday special given to us by a family member who moved away. The replacement for it earlier this year is a big 1080p monster (by our standards) that the neighbors left on the curb because they upgraded to a 4k TV. It's a "smart" TV of course but we have never connected it to the Internet, just the little Roku box we have for occasional streaming.

forgotpwd16
>Ask HN: What’s the best TV to buy?

>every second reply: LG

That worked great for OP.

halo37253
You'd have to block it at the router level. Just block the IP addresses the TV is broadcasting too and receiving ads from.

Honestly while LG makes a good TV. WebOS sucks. And their need to push ads is crazy.

That's why I like Sony TV's, Google TV is a better interface. And The homescreen has no ads.

I would just use a fire tv stick, roku, or even better yet a Nvidia shield and not deal with WebOS at all. The Worst thing about LG and Samsung TV's have always been the Interface, but I'd take Samsung's over LG any day of the week.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
dawnerd
I definitely have ads on my google tv built into my Sony tv.
snek_case
I have a semi-recent Sony TV and it has shitty ads on the home screen too, unfortunately. I feel like there's an opportunity here for a brand to sell an ad-free TV. I know I'd pay an extra 200-400 and a lot of other people here too.
drcongo
There is not a chance in hell I would ever buy a TV running something called "Google TV". I can only think of two companies I trust less than Google, and those are Facebook and Samsung.
samarthr1
I wonder if there is a market for a libre tv? Something akin to framework but more open
phowat
I'm not sure if it's possible to downgrade the OS, but I have an older LG model with WebOS 5 and I don't get any ads. So it might be something worth investigating.
[dead] rosndo
capableweb
Everyone knows that it's very damaging to naked bodies until you're at least 18 years old. Nudity is something we strive to hide as much as possible for this very reason. Who's naked in real life anyways? Only TV/media shows fiction like that.
_dain_
must we really go through this game where you pretend not to be an extremist and we pretend not to notice you are an extremist? the overwhelming majority of the world does not subscribe to your views on showing porn to children.
rosndo
I see that you can’t actually come up with a reasonable argument to defend your archaic views.

Over here in Europe naked asses and even gasp breasts are a fairly common sight at beaches. Normal people don’t object to this.

I’s guess that in most of the world it’s still common to beat your wife, despite that I subscribe to the view that people who beat their wives suck.

_dain_
another dishonest game where you pretend to not understand context and make someone laboriously explain it to you. there is a difference between advertising pornography and seeing nudity at a beach.

by equating nudism with pornography, you're adopting the puritan frame you claim to oppose. that we can make obvious distinctions like this is the sign of a mature and healthy society; collapsing them into one concept is the domain of sex freaks and salafists.

rosndo
This was a documentary, not porn.

It’s not a dishonest game, you just don’t like your views being questioned.

> by equating nudism with pornography

What? Being naked at the beach is “nudism” now? You certainly don’t need to go to a nudist beach to see exposed breasts.

impostergc
Not a documentary: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261189/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2
rosndo
I don’t see the “giant naked ass” described by the OP. That’s a pretty small naked ass without genitalia visible, something you’d see at the beach.

You can’t even accuse that of giving a distorted view of how human bodies are supposed to look like.

leephillips
It’s likely that different beaches have different sized asses. The ones in the U.S. are off the scale.
subjectsigma
It is 100% a dishonest game. You have come across as condescending and extremely pedantic every comment in this thread, focusing on the minute details of the situation and aggressively questioning the beliefs of the OP instead of being useful in any way. Go the comment somewhere else. Or better yet, go outside.
rosndo
You have to appreciate the fact that I’ve been replying to commenters like _dain_ who is accusing me of being an “extremist”.
andybak
You've slightly overstated your case. I was on board for someone to counter GPs post but it's not you.

1. A "giant ass" isn't pornographic per se.

2. "Extremist" is a weird way to put it.

_dain_
>1. A "giant ass" isn't pornographic per se.

I am being charitable and assuming it is indeed a sexualized/objectified/pornographic pic of a giant ass, i.e. that OP isn't being disingenous

>2. "Extremist" is a weird way to put it.

"showing porn to kids is Good Actually" is an extremist view. if you polled people it would be a fringe opinion, and most would regard it as an abhorrent idea.

rosndo
> "showing porn to kids is Good Actually" is an extremist view. if you polled people it would be a fringe opinion, and most would regard it as an abhorrent idea.

Nobody is arguing this. Why construct strange strawmen?

Working this hard to prevent your kids from seeing nudity is weird, end of story.

andybak
> sexualized/objectified/pornographic

One of those things is not the same as the others.

cweagans
Nudity and porn are not the same things.
_dain_
the thing is literally called "porn".

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261189/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2

and i doubt GGP comment would be opposed to showing actual porn to children either (he is trying to be cutesy and not outright saying it, but it is obvious).

cweagans
The cover image itself is not pornographic, IMO. If it were an image of people actually having sex, then yeah let's talk about that. But it's not. It's literally just a naked ass.

Gotta be honest, I think you're reading a lot more into that comment than is necessary or warranted. That comment did not advocate for showing pornography to children. It is not "obvious". You made an assumption. I read it as a direct response to 'or another named just "Porn" with a giant naked ass on the poster.' in the OP.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

impostergc
What other plausible interpretation could there be?
rosndo
The obvious interpretation is “you shouldn’t stress out about your kids seeing asses on TV”.

Not “you should show porn to your kids”.

rosndo
> and i doubt GGP comment would be opposed to showing actual porn to children either

It sounds like as if you were trying to accuse me of being some sort of a pedophile, come on. That’s just unnecessary.

I wouldn’t be opposed to my children looking up porn on the internet. Why should I be? All you need to do is pull them aside for a conversation and make sure that they understand what they’re looking at.

Pushing them to do so would be weird, they’ll find it on their own pretty soon anyway.

You should have a normal healthy relationship with your children where you can discuss these things in a constructive manner. Otherwise you might be a bad parent.

cweagans
> Otherwise you might be a bad parent.

This is not helpful either. You could have said what you thought without implying someone is a bad parent (in the same way that nobody should have implied that you are a pedophile).

istjohn
What's weird is not acknowledging that a huge portion of the world is not comfortable exposing their children to nudity due to religious beliefs and/or societal norms, which is why every major search engine, social network, and app store blocks nudity with content filters.
rosndo
A huge chunk of the world population also holds downright evil views regarding the rights of women.

I’m not sure why you think that mere prevalence would make such opinions reasonable.

_dain_
so it's okay to force parents to accept their kids seeing porn on TV because you think those parents are also misogynists?
npteljes
I read that naked ass thing as something that's an example of a worrying trend. In a way like "if these are on the screen now, who knows what else will be there later?".
recursive
Sometimes people do things which will seem weird to you. Get used to it.
alexk307
I just got the LG A1, and I am also disappointed with how many ads they serve. I'm probably going to get an Apple TV to replace the shitty LG UI.

There is a setting hidden deep in a menu that will turn off ads. I was able to find it, and it no longer serves me ads, but it continues to show recommendations, so I'm not sure if that will help your issue.

halo37253
The Apple TV is a pretty Crappy Device to replace it with. The UI is nearly just as bad.

I will say the new Apple TV remote does make it usable. The old touch one was horrible.

allisdust
Can't you sue them? Isn't adult content regulated when displayed on television.
capableweb
That's like the most boring and long duration solution you could possibly engage with. While it'll solve the problem for others too, to reach that stage will take months, possibly years, not to talk about the amount of money it'll cost.
staticelf
Connect the TV to the network but block it in the network from internet access. That way, you can still use it to cast stuff to via wifi but you don't have to worry about the ads situation.
NortySpock
Have you been able to test if PiHole ad blocking works on your TV? Might be quick to give it a shot yourself if you have a 'spare' home computer to use as a server.

After all, you can't trust just any single comment on the internet.

tmottabr
i have a Samsung TV, altough it is an older model it is a Tizen one. It does have ads but my dns adblocker (AdGuard Home) block then without problem.

But i have my routed configured to block and redirect any DNS traffic to my AdGuard so even if they try using a different DNS server it will be force redirected to my local DNS.

Just hope the day they start using DoH to go around that take a long time to come.

EDIT: I have my AdGuard set to force secure search in youtube and it is working, so i know that it is using my local DNS and not whatever address it has hardcoded.

irskep
I use an Apple TV with my LG TV and it has a better UI with no ads.
Sohcahtoa82
I have an LG OLED TV. I didn't connect it to my Wifi. Works perfectly and has never nagged me to connect and update.
projektfu
Perhaps pitch the story to a news outlet and embarrass the company. I can’t imagine Brazilians uniquely like this “feature”.
patrickserrano
I have an LG OLED TV and I use pi-hole to block all of the creepy ad-tech that's built into to. Whenever I want to check if there are updates to anything on the TV, I disable the pi-hole for 5 mins and manually check for updates.

This is a good starting block-list: https://gist.github.com/wassname/78eeaaad299dc4cddd04e372f20...

giantg2
Aren't some devices now building in (or skipping really) DNS so they bypass pi hole?
tmottabr
i just block the DNS traffic that is not going to your local DNS.

I use AdGuard Home, find it better then Pi-Hole, and it use DoT for queries (can do that with Pi-hole but you need to set up a proxy for that manually) so i just block anything in port 53 that the destination is not my internal DNS.

giantg2
Yeah, but I mean they aren't looking up DNS entries and using hard-coded addresses. So they don't use port 53.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roku/comments/602cnk/is_there_any_o...

tmottabr
The DNS server is hardcoded, so they use the DNS server that Samsung want instead of your local. But it will failover to local network DNS if it fail to connect to the hardcoded server as far as i know.

It is not the ads server that is hardcoded. I doubt they will ever do that because that is hard to manage and does not escale.

So there will be traffic in port 53 that will be captured and redirected to my local dns server.

nixgeek
What about clients using DoH?
tmottabr
i block DoT and DNS-over-Quic since they use specific ports.

DoH is hard but most devices that i worrie about does not use it yet so i am not doing anything.

If this start becoming a problem either we will need to build a list of DoH server addresses to blacklist and this will be a cat and mouse game. Or you will need a https middlebox to look at what is in there to see if it is DoH and block or not, and that bring a whole lot of other problems.

Krisjohn
Some devices have hard coded DNS settings, but you can set up a rule on most decent routers to NAT all DNS requests (port 53) that don't come from your pihole (or similar), back to that DNS server.
cure
Yeah, don't buy a TV, just buy a (very large) monitor. If you're happy with a 43", this one is a good choice: LG 43UN700-B - but it's not OLED.
cyberge99
Does anyone know of any monitors that can be used with a remote control? Or would hdmi CEC handle that?
Nextgrid
I've had good success with Sony professional displays and the costs were very reasonable (maybe ~300£ more than the equivalent consumer grade model). It's stock Android TV with no bullshit what-so-ever, and of course you can use a separate set-top-box via HDMI-CEC or even just set it to power on/off upon receiving an HDMI signal like a computer monitor.
cure
That LG one I posted above comes with a remote.
stonecharioteer
CEC can switch inputs, and you can get a portable keyboard/mouse for input.
CynicusRex
Easy, discard TV's from your life entirely.
kllrnohj
There's a lot of unnecessarily complicated recommendations here. It's really quite simple.

    1: factory reset the TV
    2: don't connect it to the Internet.
    3: use a decent set top box for all your streaming needs. Be it a console, Apple TV, Chromecast, or Nvidia shield (avoid the cheaper Android TV devices, those are heavily ad subsidized)
fsflover
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30428510
kllrnohj
1: not even a theoretical problem in many areas (requires open access wifi in range not restricted by a guest portal).

2: sounds fake AF. Proof or gtfo. TVs wifi squatting opens up some sketchy legal issues, that's the type of the thing company lawyers would shut down if it even made it that far. Unless of course there's an actual contract between say Comcast & LG granting authorization, but that then becomes the type of thing that should be a whole lot more probable than a random anecdote without evidence

falcolas
> don't connect it to the Internet.

Does a neighbor have an open wifi? They'll use that.

Does a connected device have internet access? They'll try to use that (data over HDMI is available up to 48Gbit/s).

There's also the possibility (though probably lower) that the device will come with its own 4G modem. Your data's worth a fair bit of money, after all (not that you will ever be allowed to sell it directly).

iso1631
If you land them on your own honeypot SSID, but with no access to the internet, will they move?
unethical_ban
Not that you're wrong, but all of the things you mention should be illegal to force onto people. No device should be able to force themselves onto a data connection without consent.
kllrnohj
It's not only should be illegal it is actually illegal. Open wifi doesn't grant or imply authorization, and accessing a network without authorization is a crime
20after4
And yet my phone, in it's default state, will automatically connect to random open wifi that happens to be available in order to access the internet.
Brian_K_White
Isn't that what that Amazon low bandwidth shared wireless thing does explicitly? It's not normal wifi but it provides public access to the internet via your hardware and your internet connection.

Also don't a lot of cable modems have public wifi served from the equipment in your posession but not under your control or even knowledge? It's a seperate logical network but it's still your net connection and your (rented) hardware.

Cars these days also have 4g connections that you can't even turn off even if you don't pay for the service like on-star.

Probably there are countless examples by now of things coming with their own access, and the idea of opportunistic scanning for open networks vs, or in addition to an own 3g/4g modem is just an implementation detail.

downrightmike
You should probably talk to your neighbor. Open wifi is dangerous
kllrnohj
> Does a connected device have internet access? They'll try to use that (data over HDMI is available up to 48Gbit/s).

Ethernet over HDMI is exceedingly rare and would require the STB you trust to do that. Which none of them do.

> There's also the possibility (though probably lower) that the device will come with its own 4G modem.

Which they don't currently, and since margins on TVs are razer thin seems extraordinary unlikely to ever happen. Not when 95% of people are happy connecting their smart TV to the Internet anyway.

But also trivially checked by a teardown, and if it ever happens trivially defeated with a faraday cage or just disconnecting the antenna

coldpie
Do you have any evidence of any TV doing this, ever?
gruez
>Does a neighbor have an open wifi? They'll use that.

AFAIK this is a rumor that lacks concrete evidence.

dncornholio
tin-foil hat stuff or actually being done?
tshaddox
Am I the only one who hasn’t encountered an open Wi-Fi access point in like 10 years?
apohn
100% This. I've got a smart TV (Android TV). Once a year or so I plug in an Ethernet to check for updates. Otherwise everything is done via an Apple TV.
aaaaaaaaata
So you only let it upload all of the speech to text it's potentially created of you once a year?
umvi
I never allowed my smart TV to connect to the internet. I only let dongles I approve (like Chromecast) to connect to the internet.
brightball
Simplest thing is to just buy Roku TV's. The Roku OS is fantastic and neutral as far as the various content provider services go. It's got everything and the phone remote controls are great.

Usually very well priced via Sam's Club too. It's the only thing I'll buy now.

bsharitt
> The Roku OS is fantastic and neutral as far as the various content provider services go.

I originally like Roku, because they used to be a neutral hardware provider, but that's not the case these days. Their OS is becoming more full of ads and are really trying to push their own content. And now nearly every time I see the Roku in the news is that they don't have new provider or that they're thinking of kicking off a provider because they're trying to get a cut of revenues.

drcongo
Roku has more built-in tracking than anything you can possibly connect to your TV.
5bolts
used to be pro roku, have several. updated its internal software started forcing ads on me.

in the junk bin they went. I do 99% of my content consuming via xbox apps at this point. Youtube (red subscriber) self hosted Plex, and occasional Amazon TV content (really only for the expanse, but now that thats over... not sure i need it)

bni
Never connect any TV with Wi-Fi or Ethernet. It's a sad state thet there isn't any TV manufacturer that respects your privacy.
forgotpwd16
You shouldn't be looking for a TV that doesn't show porn ads but one that doesn't show any ads. I've a mid-priced Android TV that doesn't have any, neither in homescreen nor mid programme. But should mention, I read that Google revamped the homescreen within the last months and from screenshots it seems the entire thing is a big space to ad new content (similar to LG's WebOS and Samsung's Tizen).
secretsatan
As many others have said, just don't plug it into the internet....

But that might not be possible if you wanted to use netflix or something on it, as well as tv channels through an aerial.

I just run everything through my PS5 (Previously a PS4, I'm sure there are other options, but I think a lot of set tops have their own advertising channels)

The playstation doesn't show me any adds except if I go to the PSN store, you can download all the major providers like netflix, apple tv, plex etc

I never switch to the TVs own channel