|
|
|
|
|
|
by scarejunba
2754 days ago
|
|
|
> These scooters (despite their benefit) are ultimately taking money out of the community (if they’re profitable) and they’re budgeting for loss and damage, so why not let the kids play on them and damage them? This is pretty much the same argument as people who litter at ball games and then say "The cleaning crew will pick it up. That's their job." |
|
|
I think that's a good analogy, but it's not quite right imo. The important factor for me is that, in this specific case the distributor (or whoever is putting them out) is placing them directly in front of a school.
Potential consumers of the service are socially expected to do work to maintain something they didn't put there or ask for and it's being purposefully placed in more naturally risky location. Or they're being placed in a way that's not very nice to others (blocking sidewalks or bike racks).
In the ball game scenario the consumer has chosen to get popcorn, made a mess (either purposefully or accidentally) and then chosen to leave it for others to take care of. So the consumer is being personally irresponsible.
My interpretation is that the scooter companies are being personally irresponsible, but then sort of making it look/feel like the potential consumers are being irresponsible?
You put your backpack in the main walkway of the airport. I tripped over it. Things spilled out of the backpack. Should I feel bad and try and pick up those things? Does that answer change if I see you doing the same thing every single Wednesday when I fly out?