• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    A recall implies the product is irreparably damaged, or too expensive to repair, and needs to be returned/replaced.

    This framing benefits corporations, because the average recall is relatively minimal and inconsequential, the public will grow to consider “recalls” as normal instead of “potentially deadly failure/defect”, and make it easier for corporate sociopaths like Space Karen to scream gubberment overreach. The wording should reflect the risk to life/public health (e.g. potential to cause harm/death) as well as the cost to repair/replace (quantify the severity of the failure/defect).

    The greater the access and granularity consumers have to this type of data, the greater the benefit to society. Any corporation, politician or lobby group arguing otherwise is your enemy.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      A recall implies the product is irreparably damaged, or too expensive to repair, and needs to be returned/replaced.

      No, it does not. I can’t think of an automotive recall that wasn’t repaired and resulted in a buyback. I’m sure there was one or two, I just can’t think of them. Edit: Here’s the list. And most of those have to do with bad welds or badly adhering paint (which affects windshields in collisions).

      Lots of cars from all manufacturers end up with recalls that get fixed as a matter of course.