4 ms·
>The trouble with your analogy is that state-sponsored teams of children aren't working day and night to find new ways to make your toy dangerous that you could
by zardo 10y ago
>The trouble with your analogy is that state-sponsored teams of children aren't working day and night to find new ways to make your toy dangerous that you could never have thought of at the time.
Human society is continually striving to build a better idiot. Manufacturers often aren't held liable or for the first instances of idiocy, but eventually they are.
For example, it was easy for engineers to believe that no one would be dumb enough to stick their hand in a running lawnmower. And for a time if you stuck your hand in a running lawnmower you would not be able to win a lawsuit over it.
But once you know about the new flavor of idiocy, it is your civic responsibility to mitigate it with safety features if possible. If you don't agree, the civil suit you lose will convince you.
If you build products that are vulnerable in well known ways, you are neglecting your civic repsonsbility as a manufacturer.
- noobiemcfoob 10y agoI see you using the phrase "civic responsibility", but I don't actually see an argument for it.
- zardo 10y ago>If you don't agree, the civil suit you lose will convince you. There you go. This is how you deal with the trajedy of the commons, punish the overgrazers. Industries that neglect civic responsibility get regulated. Particularly bad actors get punished.
- broahmed 10y agoI apologize if this comes across as combative: does one need an argument that mitigating well-known safety or security hazards in a product you're making is a civic responsibility?
- noobiemcfoob 10y agoYes. I don't take it as a given that a manufacturer is responsible for the product they manufacture. If they manufacturer promises certain things about that product, then yes, they should be held to those promises. Otherwise, what makes it so obvious that the manufacturer must handle anything at all?