• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days 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 they can claim any recall as minimal and inconsequential, and act like critical defects that could kill are gubberment overreach. The wording should reflect the risk to life/public health (e.g. severity) as well as the cost to replace.

    The greater the access and granularity consumers have in product 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
      0
      ·
      2 days 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.

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