5 ms·

Why shouldn't they? Public individuals are routinely held accountable for their statements. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the sam

Why shouldn't they? Public individuals are routinely held accountable for their statements. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the same standards? If corporations promise a feature, then fail to deliver, they should be held liable for false advertisement. Similarly, if Microsoft promises Windows 10 is the last "Windows Version", then launches Windows 11, we should be allowed to sue them for making false statements. Oh wait I just want a law that makes false advertisement absolutely, unequivocally, illegal. Corporations should sell what they have now, not what they might have in the future.

readthenotes1 3y ago
Actually, i was being sarcastic... The legal fiction if corporations being legal person-like that shields sackler's and whoever headed the credit rating agencies leading up to 2008 is obscene
imgabe 3y ago
When are public individuals held accountable for their statements? Public figures lie constantly, they tell us there's WMDs in Iraq, that inflation is transitory, that an election was stolen, and on and on. They never get held accountable. How would you even begin to differentiate between people who are lying and people who are simply wrong? > Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the same standards? Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable.
- Prickle 3y ago
  > When are public individuals held accountable for their statements? "Public individual" is not exclusive to members of the american government. Should we legislate that as well? Nations have started legislating laws against falsehoods after all. Minor public figures, the latest most "current" example being video creators on social media platforms, are routinely held accountable for failure to disclose sponsorships. Why aren't corporations found in legal trouble for failing to disclose that XYZ feature was never going to happen? I should add, private individuals are also held accountable for statements in court. Why should such things be exclusive to courts? Does the truth only matter in front of a judge? Should we not find the act of lying for the sake of greater sales, a despicable act? > Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable. This is a blatant lie. Customers boycotting Chevron doesn't stop them from buying judges and violating the environments of various nations such as Ecuador. Individual consumers, even consumers coming together to form a large group, still cannot effect any major damage to a corporation. The only entities that can truly "fight" a corporation are similarly sized governments or organized violent attacks on corporate property.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    > Nations have started legislating laws against falsehoods after all. Which nations? How? Who determines what is a "falsehood"? A failed prediction is not the same thing as a lie. It might be disappointing if a company predicts they will be able to deliver a feature and it turns out that they can't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were lying when they said they were going to. Yes it would be nice if the world were perfectly controllable and predictable and everything that went wrong was a result of bad people deliberately deceiving you, but that's not reality. All such laws would accomplish is to ensure that nobody ever makes a definitive statement about anything, ever again. Couch everything in weasel words to ensure that there is sufficiently vagueness to combat an accusations of "lying" and you're good to go. > Customers boycotting Chevron doesn't stop them from buying judges and violating the environments of various nations such as Ecuador. Because customers en masse largely don't know or care about the environment in Ecuador and no significant percentage of them are going to engage in any such boycott. The end-users filling up their cars at gas station are also not "customers" in any meaningful sense for Chevron, who is selling petroleum products wholesale in an entirely different market. Meanwhile, customers finding that Sears is no longer a good place to buy the things they need and shopping for appliances at Home Depot and Lowe's absolutely did have an effect on Sears and let them know that they were failing to meet the needs of their customers.
    - Prickle 3y ago
      > Which nations? How? Who determines what is a "falsehood"? Fakenews laws specifically. They are popping up everywhere from Europe, Asia, some American states, etc. For better or worse. > A failed prediction is not the same thing as a lie. It is absolutely a lie/falsehood if you use it during a sales pitch. "We promise to create XYZ feature in the near future. That's why our product is a great deal!" should be immediately binding, with legal ramifications looming. You are selling the concept of future features as a reason to purchase or invest. Failure is no longer an option. Don't like that? Then don't make bullshit statements! It's very very easy to not make false statements! > It might be disappointing if a company predicts they will be able to deliver a feature and it turns out that they can't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were lying when they said they were going to. If you make a promise you cannot keep, you lied. Simple as that. Corporations should never receive the benefit of the doubt. > Because customers en masse largely don't know or care about the environment in Ecuador and no significant percentage of them are going to engage in any such boycott. The end-users filling up their cars at gas station are also not "customers" in any meaningful sense for Chevron, who is selling petroleum products wholesale in an entirely different market. Which is why the laws are needed. > Meanwhile, customers finding that Sears is no longer a good place to buy the things they need and shopping for appliances at Home Depot and Lowe's absolutely did have an effect on Sears and let them know that they were failing to meet the needs of their customers. Which resulted in Sears attempting to catch up VIA IP theft. They have lost multiple legal suites over this, with entire expose' written about it. Overall, this example is irrelevant, as Sears is a local company beholden to local consumers. Completely unlike major corporations like Chevron or Microsoft.
- bradjohnson 3y ago
  > Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable. Nothing except layers of political lobbying, misleading advertising, opaque corporate ownership, and monopolistic practices. The result being: - You won't find out about corporate misdeeds, and if you do - You will be told it's not that bad or that they've changed, and if you don't believe that - You will have trouble finding a brand that they do not own, and if you find that - It won't be as easy to obtain or cheap
  - imgabe 3y ago
    There are very different things being talked about here as if they are the same. The original comment I replied to gave this example: > If corporations promise a feature, then fail to deliver, they should be held liable for false advertisement. You will definitely find out if the promised feature was delivered or not. You will be aware of the identity of the company that promised the feature. You may absolutely evaluate whether you continue to purchase things from that company, based on their past performance. This is well within the ability of consumers and they do it all the time, regardless of any laws about "false advertising" to which this may or may not apply. As for whether consumers should be making their purchase decisions on completely unrelated data about "corporate misdeeds", such as how the company may or may not have behaved in a foreign country, a situation the consumer does indeed know little to nothing about. No, I don't think that basing purchasing decision on things like that is effective or useful, but people are of course welcome to use whatever factors they like.
    - bradjohnson 3y ago
      I'm referring to the article, not a feature of a product. I consider profiting off of green-washing while simultaneously being one of the biggest contributors to pollution and then silently reneging on your carbon emissions target a "corporate misdeed". I think that all of the companies that set these public carbon emissions goals as PR should be held fully accountable for missing them.
      - 3y ago
jeffbee 3y ago
I always felt this way about my “Terminator 2: The Ultimate Edition” DVD. Then they came out with another one? False advertising!
- Prickle 3y ago
  In that case, I feel it would simply be the "Ultimate Edition" at that time. Not the ultimate edition for perpetuity, which would be theoretically impossible. (Unless we say it is the Ultimate DVD edition.) It would still be different from a statement like "Windows 10 is the final version of Windows".
listenallyall 3y ago
> Similarly, if Microsoft promises Windows 10 is the last "Windows Version", then launches Windows 11, we should be allowed to sue them for making false statements. What damages would you claim?
- Grum9 3y ago
  One new PC for everyone without a TPM switch in their current system locked out of the windows 11 upgrade?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    So far they are still supporting Windows 10 for those customers. If that ceases, then you might have a claim.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      Supporting meaning only security updates
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Prickle 3y ago
  In theory, we would force Microsoft to support Windows 10 for one lifetime. That would still qualify as the "Last Edition of Windows", just for your life. If not possible, then Microsoft should refund every single Windows 10 purchase, as well as all license fees stemming from that same claim.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    But Microsoft would say, we now support 11, everyone got a free upgrade, it's better, therefore nobody is harmed.
    - Prickle 3y ago

readthenotes1 3y ago

Actually, i was being sarcastic... The legal fiction if corporations being legal person-like that shields sackler's and whoever headed the credit rating agencies leading up to 2008 is obscene

imgabe 3y ago

When are public individuals held accountable for their statements? Public figures lie constantly, they tell us there's WMDs in Iraq, that inflation is transitory, that an election was stolen, and on and on. They never get held accountable. How would you even begin to differentiate between people who are lying and people who are simply wrong? > Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the same standards? Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable.

Prickle 3y ago
> When are public individuals held accountable for their statements? "Public individual" is not exclusive to members of the american government. Should we legislate that as well? Nations have started legislating laws against falsehoods after all. Minor public figures, the latest most "current" example being video creators on social media platforms, are routinely held accountable for failure to disclose sponsorships. Why aren't corporations found in legal trouble for failing to disclose that XYZ feature was never going to happen? I should add, private individuals are also held accountable for statements in court. Why should such things be exclusive to courts? Does the truth only matter in front of a judge? Should we not find the act of lying for the sake of greater sales, a despicable act? > Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable. This is a blatant lie. Customers boycotting Chevron doesn't stop them from buying judges and violating the environments of various nations such as Ecuador. Individual consumers, even consumers coming together to form a large group, still cannot effect any major damage to a corporation. The only entities that can truly "fight" a corporation are similarly sized governments or organized violent attacks on corporate property.
- imgabe 3y ago
  > Nations have started legislating laws against falsehoods after all. Which nations? How? Who determines what is a "falsehood"? A failed prediction is not the same thing as a lie. It might be disappointing if a company predicts they will be able to deliver a feature and it turns out that they can't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were lying when they said they were going to. Yes it would be nice if the world were perfectly controllable and predictable and everything that went wrong was a result of bad people deliberately deceiving you, but that's not reality. All such laws would accomplish is to ensure that nobody ever makes a definitive statement about anything, ever again. Couch everything in weasel words to ensure that there is sufficiently vagueness to combat an accusations of "lying" and you're good to go. > Customers boycotting Chevron doesn't stop them from buying judges and violating the environments of various nations such as Ecuador. Because customers en masse largely don't know or care about the environment in Ecuador and no significant percentage of them are going to engage in any such boycott. The end-users filling up their cars at gas station are also not "customers" in any meaningful sense for Chevron, who is selling petroleum products wholesale in an entirely different market. Meanwhile, customers finding that Sears is no longer a good place to buy the things they need and shopping for appliances at Home Depot and Lowe's absolutely did have an effect on Sears and let them know that they were failing to meet the needs of their customers.
  - Prickle 3y ago
    > Which nations? How? Who determines what is a "falsehood"? Fakenews laws specifically. They are popping up everywhere from Europe, Asia, some American states, etc. For better or worse. > A failed prediction is not the same thing as a lie. It is absolutely a lie/falsehood if you use it during a sales pitch. "We promise to create XYZ feature in the near future. That's why our product is a great deal!" should be immediately binding, with legal ramifications looming. You are selling the concept of future features as a reason to purchase or invest. Failure is no longer an option. Don't like that? Then don't make bullshit statements! It's very very easy to not make false statements! > It might be disappointing if a company predicts they will be able to deliver a feature and it turns out that they can't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were lying when they said they were going to. If you make a promise you cannot keep, you lied. Simple as that. Corporations should never receive the benefit of the doubt. > Because customers en masse largely don't know or care about the environment in Ecuador and no significant percentage of them are going to engage in any such boycott. The end-users filling up their cars at gas station are also not "customers" in any meaningful sense for Chevron, who is selling petroleum products wholesale in an entirely different market. Which is why the laws are needed. > Meanwhile, customers finding that Sears is no longer a good place to buy the things they need and shopping for appliances at Home Depot and Lowe's absolutely did have an effect on Sears and let them know that they were failing to meet the needs of their customers. Which resulted in Sears attempting to catch up VIA IP theft. They have lost multiple legal suites over this, with entire expose' written about it. Overall, this example is irrelevant, as Sears is a local company beholden to local consumers. Completely unlike major corporations like Chevron or Microsoft.
bradjohnson 3y ago
> Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable. Nothing except layers of political lobbying, misleading advertising, opaque corporate ownership, and monopolistic practices. The result being: - You won't find out about corporate misdeeds, and if you do - You will be told it's not that bad or that they've changed, and if you don't believe that - You will have trouble finding a brand that they do not own, and if you find that - It won't be as easy to obtain or cheap
- imgabe 3y ago
  There are very different things being talked about here as if they are the same. The original comment I replied to gave this example: > If corporations promise a feature, then fail to deliver, they should be held liable for false advertisement. You will definitely find out if the promised feature was delivered or not. You will be aware of the identity of the company that promised the feature. You may absolutely evaluate whether you continue to purchase things from that company, based on their past performance. This is well within the ability of consumers and they do it all the time, regardless of any laws about "false advertising" to which this may or may not apply. As for whether consumers should be making their purchase decisions on completely unrelated data about "corporate misdeeds", such as how the company may or may not have behaved in a foreign country, a situation the consumer does indeed know little to nothing about. No, I don't think that basing purchasing decision on things like that is effective or useful, but people are of course welcome to use whatever factors they like.
  - bradjohnson 3y ago
    I'm referring to the article, not a feature of a product. I consider profiting off of green-washing while simultaneously being one of the biggest contributors to pollution and then silently reneging on your carbon emissions target a "corporate misdeed". I think that all of the companies that set these public carbon emissions goals as PR should be held fully accountable for missing them.
    - 3y ago

jeffbee 3y ago

I always felt this way about my “Terminator 2: The Ultimate Edition” DVD. Then they came out with another one? False advertising!

Prickle 3y ago
In that case, I feel it would simply be the "Ultimate Edition" at that time. Not the ultimate edition for perpetuity, which would be theoretically impossible. (Unless we say it is the Ultimate DVD edition.) It would still be different from a statement like "Windows 10 is the final version of Windows".

listenallyall 3y ago

> Similarly, if Microsoft promises Windows 10 is the last "Windows Version", then launches Windows 11, we should be allowed to sue them for making false statements. What damages would you claim?

Grum9 3y ago
One new PC for everyone without a TPM switch in their current system locked out of the windows 11 upgrade?
- brewdad 3y ago
  So far they are still supporting Windows 10 for those customers. If that ceases, then you might have a claim.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    Supporting meaning only security updates
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Prickle 3y ago
In theory, we would force Microsoft to support Windows 10 for one lifetime. That would still qualify as the "Last Edition of Windows", just for your life. If not possible, then Microsoft should refund every single Windows 10 purchase, as well as all license fees stemming from that same claim.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  But Microsoft would say, we now support 11, everyone got a free upgrade, it's better, therefore nobody is harmed.
  - Prickle 3y ago