3 ms·
> But they don't inform the user of the potential hazard of using otherwise safe-to-consume tap water. Devil's advocate: if they did, odds are consumers would
by solatic 8y ago
> But they don't inform the user of the potential hazard of using otherwise safe-to-consume tap water.
Devil's advocate: if they did, odds are consumers would consider it as if the company is peddling conspiracy theories rather than actual science. Or "maybe it's true for tap water where the pots are made, but I trust my tap water and I know it's safe". If such explanations are more likely to harm a company's perception than to protect consumers, then what value do they have?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wholinator2 8y agoThe good that that does is saving lives, even if it harms the companies reputation. It sounds like you're suggesting that a companies reputation is worth more than the potential death of unknowing, innocent people.
- solatic 8y agoOf course the company has a moral obligation to protect their consumers, which is why the company warns against using tap water in the first place. The question isn't whether or not it's worth it for the company to try and save lives, it's whether an additional explanation will actually save more lives. The fact that there's a real potential image hit to the company makes the case that much more difficult to make to decision makers.