384
New California ghost gun lawsuit takes aim at company that sells 3-D printer filament
(www.latimes.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
384 points (98.7% liked)
3DPrinting
24001 readers
376 users here now
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Statements like these always seem deceiving to me. Like, how much time did you give them? Some of these people race to get their story out too quickly, without giving a reasonable amount of time for a response.
What if they respond later? I guess they could update the article, but that's still after people have already read it and formed their opinions based on the original contents.
This is very normal, and not meant to be deceiving. If the group who didn't respond to the request does respond after the article was published, that will be removed and a statement that reads something like "Polymaker (insert title or department) responded after initial publishing with this statement" and that statement will follow after. From a journalistic integrity standpoint it shows that they wanted to get both sides of a story, especially if one side was interviewed or quoted. The alternative of not stating that comment was requested is we read the article and wonder if Polymaker ever got a chance to speak their side.
But that's kinda my point: I still don't know if they had a chance to speak their side before the article was published, nor do I know if they will.
It's really just a nitpick on my part. If they plan to publish a follow-up article about the response, then it would seem a bit more honest to just add one word: "yet"
I have seen sometimes where the author of the article will include the amount of time given for a response to give context. I like that quite a bit. On the other hand, some companies make it exceedingly difficult to contact them or throw you into a maze of powerless and uninformed underlings.