6 ms·

Misleading title. Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous a

Misleading title. Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to label as "Undermining Plastic Recycling Efforts". Especially when they do things to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. That's not to say bottle deposits wouldn't be a great system, regardless of how it hurts Coca-Cola's bottle line - I just can't abide by such egregious dishonesty. I've taken to referring to such over generalization of titles "the news cycle Simpson's Paradox." Its masking material details by over generalizing or over abstracting them away.

danharaj 7y ago
Just because it's in Coca Cola's best interest to undermine effective plastic recycling policies does not mean it's dishonest to claim that Coca Cola is undermining effective plastic recycling policies. > Especially when they do so much to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. Comparatively ineffective ways. The fact that a company like Coca Cola can choke policy by making it rain money so that effective policy that hurts their profits cannot be implemented is the crux of the article. How is this title dishonest?
- MrStonedOne 7y ago
  They did it to one type of policy. Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. In the sense of I read the title, thought, why the fuck is coca-cola blocking recycling efforts, why don't they like recycling? clicked, read, and was disappointed because I felt mislead and click bated to read an article i wouldn't have bothered to read if it was titled more honestly like, "[How] Coca-Cola uses it's charitable efforts in recycling nonprofits to block bottle deposit bills" So, to answer your question, it's dishonest and misleading because its an over-generalized and over-abstracted summary of the subject matter that gains clicks that a more on point title would not gain.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    > Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. But that's not the title. That's a much stronger statement than the article. If you choose such creative ways to interpret people's words then you can make anyone sound dishonest or stupid.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      I can't speak for anyone else, but I also read the title as suggesting that Coca-Cola was generically opposed to plastic recycling. That's not what the title means formally, but that's what I took away. I suspect this was intentional. This is similar to how some people think it's clever to answer "yes" when asked an "X or Y" question where both X and Y are true. Technically, it's a correct answer, but it is not a response designed to engender a correct understanding of the situation in the listener's mind. I think the title would be just as punchy and less likely to mislead if it were "How Coca-Cola Undermines Bottle Deposit Efforts".
mindslight 7y ago
Bottle deposits are a terrible system. Store bags full of half-sugary cans (or use much more water rinsing them out beyond a doubt), and foul your hands up before getting groceries (or spend gas on a separate trip), all to effectively recover less than minimum wage? Unless you're drinking some enormous amount of soda or beer, you're better off viewing it as simply another 5 cent tax, and putting them in the standard municipal recycling.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  And yet, despite all that, bottle deposits get people to recycle.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    I really don't know what is so hard about throwing an item into the appropriate trash can, but sure I can't argue with those numbers. Though there has got to be a better way to incentivize recycling than using human effort to play with singular pieces of trash. Especially one that doesn't end up preying on vulnerable people who don't need the pennies but still ending up hoarding empty cans in their house/car/etc.
    - pixl97 7y ago
      There is no better way to incentivize recycling. Single stream has been a failure. Once trash is mixed complicated and expensive separation by humans is necessary. Deposits reduce the amount that get mixed in the first place. Furthermore I'd go much farther myself. A lower deposit on items that can be easily recyclable. A much higher deposit on plastic items that are hard to recycle in order to push the manufacturer's to make recyclable packaging.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  Here in Norway the deposit is closer to USD 0.50 than USD 0.05. I just keep a bag for returnable cans and bottles and all the shops where I return them have disposable wipes so that you can clean your hands after returning the cans and bottles. I don't use any water to rinse out the cans. We just return the bottles and cans about once or twice a month, perhaps a little more often around Christmas.
KirinDave 7y ago
> Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to label as "Undermining Plastic Recycling Efforts". Especially when they do things to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. Well, it seems to me like they're using the natural tendency of organizations to self-preserve as a lever. By giving these orgs just enough funding to be visible and retain a staff, they can garrote meaningful changes to resource management policies that hurt their bottom line. We're not interested in ineffective measures for plastic management. If they're pushing for ineffective measures while threatening to freeze out anyone with serious conversations about effective ones, then they're not pushing for "recycling efforts in other ways." They're manipulating the system to keep it ineffective. I'm not sure this title is disingenuous at all.

danharaj 7y ago

Just because it's in Coca Cola's best interest to undermine effective plastic recycling policies does not mean it's dishonest to claim that Coca Cola is undermining effective plastic recycling policies. > Especially when they do so much to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. Comparatively ineffective ways. The fact that a company like Coca Cola can choke policy by making it rain money so that effective policy that hurts their profits cannot be implemented is the crux of the article. How is this title dishonest?

MrStonedOne 7y ago
They did it to one type of policy. Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. In the sense of I read the title, thought, why the fuck is coca-cola blocking recycling efforts, why don't they like recycling? clicked, read, and was disappointed because I felt mislead and click bated to read an article i wouldn't have bothered to read if it was titled more honestly like, "[How] Coca-Cola uses it's charitable efforts in recycling nonprofits to block bottle deposit bills" So, to answer your question, it's dishonest and misleading because its an over-generalized and over-abstracted summary of the subject matter that gains clicks that a more on point title would not gain.
- danharaj 7y ago
  > Framing it in the light of "They are blocking [all] recycling efforts" is dishonest. But that's not the title. That's a much stronger statement than the article. If you choose such creative ways to interpret people's words then you can make anyone sound dishonest or stupid.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I also read the title as suggesting that Coca-Cola was generically opposed to plastic recycling. That's not what the title means formally, but that's what I took away. I suspect this was intentional. This is similar to how some people think it's clever to answer "yes" when asked an "X or Y" question where both X and Y are true. Technically, it's a correct answer, but it is not a response designed to engender a correct understanding of the situation in the listener's mind. I think the title would be just as punchy and less likely to mislead if it were "How Coca-Cola Undermines Bottle Deposit Efforts".

mindslight 7y ago

Bottle deposits are a terrible system. Store bags full of half-sugary cans (or use much more water rinsing them out beyond a doubt), and foul your hands up before getting groceries (or spend gas on a separate trip), all to effectively recover less than minimum wage? Unless you're drinking some enormous amount of soda or beer, you're better off viewing it as simply another 5 cent tax, and putting them in the standard municipal recycling.

rebuilder 7y ago
And yet, despite all that, bottle deposits get people to recycle.
- mindslight 7y ago
  I really don't know what is so hard about throwing an item into the appropriate trash can, but sure I can't argue with those numbers. Though there has got to be a better way to incentivize recycling than using human effort to play with singular pieces of trash. Especially one that doesn't end up preying on vulnerable people who don't need the pennies but still ending up hoarding empty cans in their house/car/etc.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    There is no better way to incentivize recycling. Single stream has been a failure. Once trash is mixed complicated and expensive separation by humans is necessary. Deposits reduce the amount that get mixed in the first place. Furthermore I'd go much farther myself. A lower deposit on items that can be easily recyclable. A much higher deposit on plastic items that are hard to recycle in order to push the manufacturer's to make recyclable packaging.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
Here in Norway the deposit is closer to USD 0.50 than USD 0.05. I just keep a bag for returnable cans and bottles and all the shops where I return them have disposable wipes so that you can clean your hands after returning the cans and bottles. I don't use any water to rinse out the cans. We just return the bottles and cans about once or twice a month, perhaps a little more often around Christmas.

KirinDave 7y ago

> Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to label as "Undermining Plastic Recycling Efforts". Especially when they do things to push for the recycling efforts in other ways. Well, it seems to me like they're using the natural tendency of organizations to self-preserve as a lever. By giving these orgs just enough funding to be visible and retain a staff, they can garrote meaningful changes to resource management policies that hurt their bottom line. We're not interested in ineffective measures for plastic management. If they're pushing for ineffective measures while threatening to freeze out anyone with serious conversations about effective ones, then they're not pushing for "recycling efforts in other ways." They're manipulating the system to keep it ineffective. I'm not sure this title is disingenuous at all.