[qayxc]

That doesn't compute: if they see it as a violation, they remove it, if they don't they ship it anyway.

Sometimes things just slip through and mistakes are made - this is pretty normal and product recalls happen all the time. What makes a policy violation different from a defective product in this regard?

[irrational]

I think they didn't view it as a violation, but outsiders did. Lego did the math and figured the production, shipping, marketing, recall, destruction of product, and loss of sales would cost less than potential bad publicity.

There is no such thing as a for-profit company that does things because it is "the right thing to do". They make decisions based on what will bring in the most profit (or result in the least amount of lost profit).

[ganoushoreilly]

It wouldn't have gone through the year + process of becoming a product without this discussion and being over-ruled. Plenty of documentation out there on how lego selects a theme / item, designs, plans production, and releases a product. It passed theses rigors, but not the "mob".

[qayxc]

> Plenty of documentation out there on how lego selects a theme / item, designs, plans production, and releases a product. It passed theses rigors, but not the "mob".

Again, the same can be said about recalled products as well - years of development and planning and even post-production QA, yet f-ups happen all the time.

[ganoushoreilly]

So what's the argument for the mob putting pressure on them for the Firemen and Police sets? How about the White House architecture set?

[qayxc]

That was not addressed by the article and thus is isn't relevant in this context.

Also - Firemen and Police sets as well as the White House set are still on the shelves, so what even is your argument here? If the company deems themselves in the right, they ignore "the mob" as you call it.

[ganoushoreilly]

I highly doubt that in this day of cancel culture "companies ignore the mob".

The context of the above is relevant, they too were products approved, that were then backtracked because a small few expressed concerns about how they saw the products.

It may not be in the article, but given it is two instances of this happening in a short period, it's very much relevant.