3 ms·

People always quote this like the company is doing something disreputable, but that's exactly what you want them to do as long as the cost of the lawsuits accur

People always quote this like the company is doing something disreputable, but that's exactly what you want them to do as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm. Recalling a hundred million cars at the cost of a hundred billion dollars because there is a 0.5% chance that one person across the entire hundred million could die is the wrong choice. Otherwise all products would have to be recalled continuously, because nothing is perfectly safe. Example: Many cars have been sold without lane departure warning systems, even though that could cause some people to die. Should they all be recalled? The equation above is how you calculate the cutoff for whether to do the recall. What would you propose that they do instead?

the_sleaze_ 2y ago
> as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm > nothing is perfectly safe > Should they all be recalled? My flippant quote from "Fight Club" isn't a great starting point - let me flush out my opinion a bit. I believe that the types of judgements we're talking about here are not ambulance-chaser-type awards for a claimant proportional to the injury but actually punitive in nature towards the business entity itself. GiantTechCorp isn't paying Alice 40 bucks because she's injured by losing her data, they're paying 10 billion as punishment to not do it [get caught] again. If the punishment doesn't incentivize the company not to reoffend, we need to change it until it does. This is my fundamental issue. 1% net profits as a punishment? Please.