4 ms·
I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?
by A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?
- paulryanrogers 4y agoAre you marketing it as a safer alternative? Do you have a near monopoly on knives?
- chii 4y agoi didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in. And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoI said "near monopoly". Companies with an outsized share of the market may be subject to extra scrutiny.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf software companies sold knives, this is how it would work: You market them as iButter knives. They are actually carving knives. Half of the users are 14 years old. You give the knives away for free, but the knives steal 1% of any food they cut. Sometimes butter knife needs an software update in the middle of cooking. If you sharpen the knives you lose warranty. Company says you should buy a new one regularly. They come with a bug, when iButter knife is used on Cheese, they spontaneously transform into chainsaws. The company says it's not a real problem because using iButter knife on anything else is against EULA
- autoexec 4y agoThe company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.
- pcthrowaway 4y agoOf course, by design the knives would also need to take a bit of the user's blood.
- politician 4y agoIf they were known to be unsafe, such as heavily rusted and the handle was loose, then yes, you could be liable.