this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
207 points (82.9% liked)
Technology
58603 readers
5016 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but shipping it back to be destroyed instead would be more wasteful, with the same end result.
It would be better to repair, but where repairs cost more than replacement, the only way to force them to repair is with regulations, as otherwise they do what costs less.
I much prefer that they require you to break it and give a new one. From a consumer perspective it's a better outcome. From an environmental perspective, it's slightly better than ship back and destroy. The ideal is repair which has less waste and solves the problem for the consumer.
I wonder if the cost of shipping a defective item were higher if it would happen so frequently. Polluting on that scale is largely free, even though it costs us all dearly.
Like you said, we don't have many tools other than regulation