I mean, it’s not really a false dichotomy though? Your statements suggest that we assign fault/root cause to the consumer. I’m suggesting we assign root cause to the manufacturer/lack of regulation. If at the end of the day, it’s the consumer’s fault they chose a product without conducting a comprehensive quality review of all components within the product they purchase, then the action of pushing government regulation contradicts that. Funding regulation doesn’t do anything to fix consumer behavior; i.e. root cause. But maybe I misinterpreted your statements.
As for your first statement, there are many problems with this reasoning. How can we reasonably expect consumers to perform comprehensive research studies on everything they purchase? If it turned out the specific manufacturer of Grade B wool that’s used for a certain sweater from a certain clothing brand is known for causing latent forms of cancer if worn for 2 years, that’s really on the consumer? C’mon now.
Besides, in this specific case, it turned out to be a catastrophic latent failure. It wasn’t even possible for an informed consumer to have predicted this sort of catastrophic failure.
Your statements suggest that we assign fault/root cause to the consumer.
Wrong. I’m saying they’re both at fault. Thus, the false dichotomy.
How can we reasonably expect consumers to perform comprehensive research studies on everything they purchase?
We don’t. A small amount of due diligence before they spend thousands on a product is all that is required. It’s not like they’re going to overlook the anti-consumerism that Apple is infamous for.
Besides, in this specific case, it turned out to be a catastrophic latent failure.
It doesn’t matter what type of failure it is. The problem is that they often cannot be repaired, and that is intentional user-hostile design.
Is this hypothetical hamburger brand notorious for having salmonella in their burgers? Because yes. Absolutely.
Yeah, of course we would. This is a false dichotomy though. You don’t have to choose one or the other.
I mean, it’s not really a false dichotomy though? Your statements suggest that we assign fault/root cause to the consumer. I’m suggesting we assign root cause to the manufacturer/lack of regulation. If at the end of the day, it’s the consumer’s fault they chose a product without conducting a comprehensive quality review of all components within the product they purchase, then the action of pushing government regulation contradicts that. Funding regulation doesn’t do anything to fix consumer behavior; i.e. root cause. But maybe I misinterpreted your statements.
As for your first statement, there are many problems with this reasoning. How can we reasonably expect consumers to perform comprehensive research studies on everything they purchase? If it turned out the specific manufacturer of Grade B wool that’s used for a certain sweater from a certain clothing brand is known for causing latent forms of cancer if worn for 2 years, that’s really on the consumer? C’mon now.
Besides, in this specific case, it turned out to be a catastrophic latent failure. It wasn’t even possible for an informed consumer to have predicted this sort of catastrophic failure.
Wrong. I’m saying they’re both at fault. Thus, the false dichotomy.
We don’t. A small amount of due diligence before they spend thousands on a product is all that is required. It’s not like they’re going to overlook the anti-consumerism that Apple is infamous for.
It doesn’t matter what type of failure it is. The problem is that they often cannot be repaired, and that is intentional user-hostile design.