> Why can't we have a consumer organization that protects us from having to buy stuff that we don't want

Because of too much money from corporations in politics

> Why can't we have a consumer organization that protects us from having to buy stuff that we don't want.

You don't have to buy stuff you don't want.

You just can't buy the stuff you do want without it being bundled with stuff you don't want - the manufacturers have decided there's no market for it.

Evidently it's more profitable to persuade a large fraction of people that they are “consumers”, whose lives are a series of branded commercial experiences, than it is to cater to the unlucrative number of people who object.

As ever, the problem is consumerism.

Being disappointed that stuff is degrading due to anti consumer for the sake of increased profits is not consumerism.

Depriving people of TVs, phones and computers is not the solution. Redirecting them to the FOSS alternatives which are more expensive, have less features and are harder to use is also not a solution.

No, please no committees of incompetent government stuffed shirts that raise the barrier to entry so high that only the established megacorps and their armies of lawyers can hope to compete. Instead, mandate that people must be allowed to opt-out of ads/tracking antifeatures, with private right of action so consumers don't have to rely on government agencies to enforce the standards.

> raise the barrier to entry

that's why I said "in mass quantities".

> instead, mandate that people must be allowed to

> ... don't have to rely on government agencies to enforce ...

Who's enforcing the mandate?

"private right of action" -> means that private individuals can sue the corporations that break the rules, they don't have to rely on a government agency to bring charges. (I'm not against government agencies also bringing charges, but that shouldn't be the only enforcement mechanism)

and wouldn't it be great if the people on that committee acted in the consumers best interests?