Halfway there, anon. They were playing you on both sides the whole time.
- Shift blame to you for corporate pollution, the main source of pollution (as opposed to residential), by promoting recycling programs instead of actually addressing the root of problem where we manufacture waste. Direct your anger inward into guilt. Save money corpo dollars here!
- Sell you built-for-the-trash garbage. Make money here by taking your money.
- Sell it to you again when it breaks and you can’t fix it. Make even more money!
- ???
- Profit even more because markets are irrational?
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
I don’t think I’ve ever come across a situation where the environmentalist and the phone seller were the same person.
edinbruh@feddit.it 1 hour ago
The tech producer in general, never cares about the environment, unless it’s for cost cutting, then they engage in virtue signalling to mask the cost cutting (i.e. not including chargers with a phone).
Yet, when the conversation about e-waste comes up, the producer shifts the blame on the buyer for buying too many devices, instead of the producer designing them to become e-waste. If devices where built to be repairable/repurposable, or at least recycled, it would greatly affect e-waste, but they would risk lower earnings.
In the few instances where a brand delivers a product that is both prestigious and (relatively) too good/lasting to effectively obsolete it at will, then they offer a turn-in service where you send back the old device and get a discount for the new one. This both busts fidelisation and raises prices on the used market, encouraging buying the new device. (I.e. iPhones, vorwerk vacuums).
Always mind the pattern. You will be less manipulatable.
missphant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 hours ago
Not environmentalist, I think it’s referring to the typical shift of the blame on the consumer.
TheFrirish@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 8 hours ago
Fairphone?