4 ms·

I think the line should be much earlier than that. But even with this very thin line, like the parent said, the deficient products are everywhere. Just look at

I think the line should be much earlier than that. But even with this very thin line, like the parent said, the deficient products are everywhere. Just look at the recalls in any major store here (Carrefour, Action, Leclerc). And that's for the main brands/distributors, go into any bazaar or market and you'll find the exact same products you find on Aliexpress/Temu, but with 10x price markup, like the parent said. Don't get me wrong. I think companies should be held to higher standards: i just don't understand why only Temu is being held responsible of the entire broken capitalist system.

AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
There are generally two ways governments hold companies accountable for dangerous products. The first is liability. If they're selling chargers that burn down houses, they get sued, and they don't want to get sued, so they don't want to sell chargers that burn down houses. The second is regulatory requirements. This one is generally worse. The incumbents capture the regulators to e.g. have the law require their technology or raise costs to exclude new entrants. The rules are often inefficient or poorly conceived with bad cost/benefit ratios. And companies making products that are dangerous but nevertheless comply with the rules will point to their checkbox compliance to dodge liability. The problem with the first one is that it doesn't work well against companies outside the jurisdiction, because then you can't sue them, and the importer will be a small entity that just files for bankruptcy if you try to sue them. But the second one has the exact same problem. They sell products that don't comply with the rules; if you try to fine them they're outside the jurisdiction and the only thing in the jurisdiction is a fungible importer that will dissolve if you try to go after them. In that environment the thing that actually works is the third thing. Customers expect some products to be dangerous and rely on product reviews to determine which ones. But this is the thing the second one inhibits, because then overpriced incumbents use their influence over the laws to target any new supplier that tries to establish a trusted brand, which causes the foreign suppliers to have to sell through dozens of unknown labels so they can continue to dissolve them if any of them get prosecuted. And then customers are stuck choosing between the overpriced incumbents and the far cheaper foreign suppliers that may or may not be safe, with many people risking the latter because they have so much lower margins.
- idiotsecant 5mo ago
  You sure typed a lot to say 'a few kids are going to get the skin melted off their face by an exploding battery, that's just the cost of doing business!'
  - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
    Notice that you fail to present any argument and are only retreating into indignation at the existence of the problem. You present no viable solution or counterargument to the criticism of the status quo.
    - selfhoster1312 5mo ago
      Jail the executives and engineers cutting corners. For some reason, you can spend years in jail for cannabis possession or an online post criticizing Macron or the police, but people who actually commit murder and ecocide by cutting costs in engineering products, or who import such bad-quality products face exactly zero consequences. Then we can't drink our water, can't eat anything from our soil, sometimes can't even breathe our air. But we are the only ones facing consequences while the rich fuckers are partying on yachts.
      - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
        The engineers are in China and thereby outside your jurisdiction. Likewise the executives of the company that actually makes the thing. The only people in your jurisdiction are tangentially related intermediaries with no real knowledge or control over the product. It's essentially proposing to punish FedEx for shipping a package or PayPal for doing a funds transfer if unbeknownst to them the vendor's product is of low quality. It's desperate and ineffective, because how is the generic transportation/warehousing/payments company supposed to tell if any of a million randos' products are junk?
        selfhoster1312 5mo ago
        I can assure you many companies pushing junk are based here in France. Actual manufacturing may take place in China for many products, but Decathlon, Leroy Merlin and Carrefour certainly have executives and engineers here. Those executives and engineers pushing negative externalities to local consumers on one side, and to producers with bad social/ecological standards in foreign lands. To be clear, i'm not against foreign products. But a french exec deciding to employ quasi-slave labor and destroy the environment on the other side of the world to maximize profits should 100% be jailed. That's already technically a crime.
kergonath 5mo ago
> i just don't understand why only Temu is being held responsible of the entire broken capitalist system They are not really. If one of the big brand shop is found importing stuff with fake certificate, they’ll experience the same thing. One of the advantage of the stores you mention is that they have a procedure for recalls, and their responsibility is on the line if they sell faulty goods. Good luck getting anything from Temu or AliExpress in the same situation (at least Amazon is very good with this).
- selfhoster1312 5mo ago
  So, then again, i'm not defending Temu. That being said, i doubt my local supermarkets face any kind of consequences. I mean, i just have to look at the AMAZING list of industrial scandals here in Europe over the last 30 years to know consequences are zero: mad cow, horse meat scandal, Volkswagen emissions, Uber claiming to not be an employer, Nestlé's "mineral" water, Mediator scandal, 2008 subprime crisis, France Télécom management/suicide scandal, etc etc. I can't name a single executive that was jailed over this period here in France. Yet if the law was applied justly thousands of executives and engineers would rot in jail and the world would arguably be a much better place because it would provide incentives for companies to actually behave and not destroy our planet and livelihoods. So are companies really taking responsibility for the lives they destroy? Not so sure.

AnthonyMouse 5mo ago

There are generally two ways governments hold companies accountable for dangerous products. The first is liability. If they're selling chargers that burn down houses, they get sued, and they don't want to get sued, so they don't want to sell chargers that burn down houses. The second is regulatory requirements. This one is generally worse. The incumbents capture the regulators to e.g. have the law require their technology or raise costs to exclude new entrants. The rules are often inefficient or poorly conceived with bad cost/benefit ratios. And companies making products that are dangerous but nevertheless comply with the rules will point to their checkbox compliance to dodge liability. The problem with the first one is that it doesn't work well against companies outside the jurisdiction, because then you can't sue them, and the importer will be a small entity that just files for bankruptcy if you try to sue them. But the second one has the exact same problem. They sell products that don't comply with the rules; if you try to fine them they're outside the jurisdiction and the only thing in the jurisdiction is a fungible importer that will dissolve if you try to go after them. In that environment the thing that actually works is the third thing. Customers expect some products to be dangerous and rely on product reviews to determine which ones. But this is the thing the second one inhibits, because then overpriced incumbents use their influence over the laws to target any new supplier that tries to establish a trusted brand, which causes the foreign suppliers to have to sell through dozens of unknown labels so they can continue to dissolve them if any of them get prosecuted. And then customers are stuck choosing between the overpriced incumbents and the far cheaper foreign suppliers that may or may not be safe, with many people risking the latter because they have so much lower margins.

idiotsecant 5mo ago
You sure typed a lot to say 'a few kids are going to get the skin melted off their face by an exploding battery, that's just the cost of doing business!'
- AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
  Notice that you fail to present any argument and are only retreating into indignation at the existence of the problem. You present no viable solution or counterargument to the criticism of the status quo.
  - selfhoster1312 5mo ago
    Jail the executives and engineers cutting corners. For some reason, you can spend years in jail for cannabis possession or an online post criticizing Macron or the police, but people who actually commit murder and ecocide by cutting costs in engineering products, or who import such bad-quality products face exactly zero consequences. Then we can't drink our water, can't eat anything from our soil, sometimes can't even breathe our air. But we are the only ones facing consequences while the rich fuckers are partying on yachts.
    - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
      The engineers are in China and thereby outside your jurisdiction. Likewise the executives of the company that actually makes the thing. The only people in your jurisdiction are tangentially related intermediaries with no real knowledge or control over the product. It's essentially proposing to punish FedEx for shipping a package or PayPal for doing a funds transfer if unbeknownst to them the vendor's product is of low quality. It's desperate and ineffective, because how is the generic transportation/warehousing/payments company supposed to tell if any of a million randos' products are junk?
      - selfhoster1312 5mo ago
        I can assure you many companies pushing junk are based here in France. Actual manufacturing may take place in China for many products, but Decathlon, Leroy Merlin and Carrefour certainly have executives and engineers here. Those executives and engineers pushing negative externalities to local consumers on one side, and to producers with bad social/ecological standards in foreign lands. To be clear, i'm not against foreign products. But a french exec deciding to employ quasi-slave labor and destroy the environment on the other side of the world to maximize profits should 100% be jailed. That's already technically a crime.

kergonath 5mo ago

> i just don't understand why only Temu is being held responsible of the entire broken capitalist system They are not really. If one of the big brand shop is found importing stuff with fake certificate, they’ll experience the same thing. One of the advantage of the stores you mention is that they have a procedure for recalls, and their responsibility is on the line if they sell faulty goods. Good luck getting anything from Temu or AliExpress in the same situation (at least Amazon is very good with this).

selfhoster1312 5mo ago
So, then again, i'm not defending Temu. That being said, i doubt my local supermarkets face any kind of consequences. I mean, i just have to look at the AMAZING list of industrial scandals here in Europe over the last 30 years to know consequences are zero: mad cow, horse meat scandal, Volkswagen emissions, Uber claiming to not be an employer, Nestlé's "mineral" water, Mediator scandal, 2008 subprime crisis, France Télécom management/suicide scandal, etc etc. I can't name a single executive that was jailed over this period here in France. Yet if the law was applied justly thousands of executives and engineers would rot in jail and the world would arguably be a much better place because it would provide incentives for companies to actually behave and not destroy our planet and livelihoods. So are companies really taking responsibility for the lives they destroy? Not so sure.