4 ms·

Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make

Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. In the same way I like not having to check restaurants are poisoning me, I like knowing my consumer rights are being respected in every other industry.

eru 2mo ago
Your preferences are not necessarily shared by other people. What's next, banning pineapple on pizza? > Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. Don't buy stuff, then? Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? > And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn, or ask your AI helper to read the fineprint.
- Gigachad 2mo ago
  Thankfully my preference for not destroying the environment and abusing buyers is shared by the majority in my country which is why stricter consumer laws are catching up to these tech companies.
- kelnos 2mo ago
  What a weird way to frame the argument. Banning pineapple on pizza takes away choice. Legally requiring that headphone manufacturers offer the ability to buy a new charging case for them just saves people money and reduces harm to the environment. Please don't argue in bad faith.
  - eru 2mo ago
    What you are suggesting also takes away a choice.
    - Gigachad 2mo ago
      Takes away the choice to not have the choice to buy replacement parts?
      - eru 2mo ago
        Yes, exactly. Consenting adults can use contracts and agreements to restrict their later choices. Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. Strictly speaking, entering that contract takes away a choice in the future. Or a car company might offer today to buy back your car in the future for a given price. If you ban that contract, they can still choose to buy back that car in the future, but the customer cannot rely on it today.
        godelski 2mo ago
        Do such products even exist? At the same quality? Your argument only makes sense in markets with high competition and high information. But those aren't the conditions of the markets today. You're acting like there is a company that actually provides the things people are complaining about. But people are complaining because they can't buy what they want. So stop arguing in bad faith. > Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. So imagine I have a contract to buy potatoes next year and they all are rotten. You're arguing "well the contract didn't specify that they wouldn't be rotten." What a shitty thing and of course the seller will be sued. There's implicit parts to the contract. Even if you hid in the contract "might be rotten" it's clear that's not in good faith. That has big externalities as people no longer trust potatoes. Which is exactly what we're seeing happening in tech...
    - al_borland 2mo ago
      The customer can still choose to buy a whole new set of headphones if their case fails or gets lost, if that's really the experience they want. Offering a replacement doesn't change that.
      - eru 2mo ago
- godelski 2mo ago
  > Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? Arguably they're doing exactly what you're asking them to do. What, did you expect them to just directly ask their legislators and not try to garner public support? Why would their legislator respond to just some rando? But thousands of people? Different story > Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn What do you think is taking all the research time? I'm as pissed off as the parent. It shouldn't be on me, the consumer, to determine if a product is fraudulent or not. Not "sub-optimal", I mean fraudulent. That's already illegal yet it's been getting more and more of a pass these days
charcircuit 2mo ago
>creating mountains of ewaste. Earth is much much bigger than you think it is. Even if you care about reducing waste, less then 3% of total waste is ewaste. Ewaste is not destroying the planet.

eru 2mo ago

Your preferences are not necessarily shared by other people. What's next, banning pineapple on pizza? > Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. Don't buy stuff, then? Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? > And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn, or ask your AI helper to read the fineprint.

Gigachad 2mo ago
Thankfully my preference for not destroying the environment and abusing buyers is shared by the majority in my country which is why stricter consumer laws are catching up to these tech companies.
kelnos 2mo ago
What a weird way to frame the argument. Banning pineapple on pizza takes away choice. Legally requiring that headphone manufacturers offer the ability to buy a new charging case for them just saves people money and reduces harm to the environment. Please don't argue in bad faith.
- eru 2mo ago
  What you are suggesting also takes away a choice.
  - Gigachad 2mo ago
    Takes away the choice to not have the choice to buy replacement parts?
    - eru 2mo ago
      Yes, exactly. Consenting adults can use contracts and agreements to restrict their later choices. Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. Strictly speaking, entering that contract takes away a choice in the future. Or a car company might offer today to buy back your car in the future for a given price. If you ban that contract, they can still choose to buy back that car in the future, but the customer cannot rely on it today.
      - godelski 2mo ago
        Do such products even exist? At the same quality? Your argument only makes sense in markets with high competition and high information. But those aren't the conditions of the markets today. You're acting like there is a company that actually provides the things people are complaining about. But people are complaining because they can't buy what they want. So stop arguing in bad faith. > Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. So imagine I have a contract to buy potatoes next year and they all are rotten. You're arguing "well the contract didn't specify that they wouldn't be rotten." What a shitty thing and of course the seller will be sued. There's implicit parts to the contract. Even if you hid in the contract "might be rotten" it's clear that's not in good faith. That has big externalities as people no longer trust potatoes. Which is exactly what we're seeing happening in tech...
  - al_borland 2mo ago
    The customer can still choose to buy a whole new set of headphones if their case fails or gets lost, if that's really the experience they want. Offering a replacement doesn't change that.
    - eru 2mo ago
godelski 2mo ago
> Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? Arguably they're doing exactly what you're asking them to do. What, did you expect them to just directly ask their legislators and not try to garner public support? Why would their legislator respond to just some rando? But thousands of people? Different story > Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn What do you think is taking all the research time? I'm as pissed off as the parent. It shouldn't be on me, the consumer, to determine if a product is fraudulent or not. Not "sub-optimal", I mean fraudulent. That's already illegal yet it's been getting more and more of a pass these days

charcircuit 2mo ago

>creating mountains of ewaste. Earth is much much bigger than you think it is. Even if you care about reducing waste, less then 3% of total waste is ewaste. Ewaste is not destroying the planet.