4 ms·

If you wanted to discredit the environmental movement, I couldn’t think of a better way than forcing everyone to switch to paper straws. And as far as I’m awar

If you wanted to discredit the environmental movement, I couldn’t think of a better way than forcing everyone to switch to paper straws. And as far as I’m aware, most places it wasn’t forced, it was voluntary.

ekianjo 2y ago
It's voluntary because it is cheap to do and looks better on your SDG checklist compared to addressing much more difficult goals.
wkat4242 2y ago
It was forced in the EU.
- orwin 2y ago
  Plastic straws were outlawed, paper straw weren't pushed. The bars I go to give wooden straws, I think that's pretty nice.
  - synecdoche 2y ago
    Lucky you
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Oh. I'm starting to see a pattern here now. It's the same thing like with GDPR - the market chooses to interpret the law in the most profitable way, which turns out to be one that's nominally compliant but defeats the purpose of the law and make things worse for the customers. Why? Because a Big Law forced down by the Clueless Bureaucrats in the Great Soviet^WEuropean Union is something people are already primed to blame, making it a perfect scapegoat - the company can choose the absolute shittiest way to comply (onerous cookie banners and questionably legal consent forms, paper straws that disintegrate when you look at them), and rake in the profits, as customers won't question this choice (many won't even think there was a choice!) - they'll just assume it's the Eurocrats fucking up things for everyone because $reasons. Now I wonder where else this is already happening, too. I now realize that talking about malicious compliance with respect to GDPR was mishandling the Hanlon's Handgun. No, it's not stupidity, but it's also not malice (promoted by systemic incentives) in the sense of CEOs of the world hoping they can frustrate EU citizens into eventually voting the law away. It's simpler, more basic form of malice - it's companies knowing they can ignore what customers want or like and go straight for most profitable, no matter how frustrating or abusive, as the EU will take the blame by default, and it's so, so big, it'll take infinite amounts of it.
    - vharuck 2y ago
      >I now realize that talking about malicious compliance with respect to GDPR was mishandling the Hanlon's Handgun. No, it's not stupidity, but it's also not malice Callous compliance?

ekianjo 2y ago

It's voluntary because it is cheap to do and looks better on your SDG checklist compared to addressing much more difficult goals.

wkat4242 2y ago

It was forced in the EU.

orwin 2y ago
Plastic straws were outlawed, paper straw weren't pushed. The bars I go to give wooden straws, I think that's pretty nice.
- synecdoche 2y ago
  Lucky you
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Oh. I'm starting to see a pattern here now. It's the same thing like with GDPR - the market chooses to interpret the law in the most profitable way, which turns out to be one that's nominally compliant but defeats the purpose of the law and make things worse for the customers. Why? Because a Big Law forced down by the Clueless Bureaucrats in the Great Soviet^WEuropean Union is something people are already primed to blame, making it a perfect scapegoat - the company can choose the absolute shittiest way to comply (onerous cookie banners and questionably legal consent forms, paper straws that disintegrate when you look at them), and rake in the profits, as customers won't question this choice (many won't even think there was a choice!) - they'll just assume it's the Eurocrats fucking up things for everyone because $reasons. Now I wonder where else this is already happening, too. I now realize that talking about malicious compliance with respect to GDPR was mishandling the Hanlon's Handgun. No, it's not stupidity, but it's also not malice (promoted by systemic incentives) in the sense of CEOs of the world hoping they can frustrate EU citizens into eventually voting the law away. It's simpler, more basic form of malice - it's companies knowing they can ignore what customers want or like and go straight for most profitable, no matter how frustrating or abusive, as the EU will take the blame by default, and it's so, so big, it'll take infinite amounts of it.
  - vharuck 2y ago
    >I now realize that talking about malicious compliance with respect to GDPR was mishandling the Hanlon's Handgun. No, it's not stupidity, but it's also not malice Callous compliance?