this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
629 points (97.3% liked)

News

35774 readers
4349 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sunroc@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yeah, this is really serious. I hope people don't construe this to be an absurd example of over litigation, while it is a completely reasonable case. Kind of like the McDonald's coffee lady getting clowned on when she is a genuine victim.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

We don't know if it's a completely reasonable case, yet. A few statements in the article would clearly cross the line of honest journalism if they weren't quotations (IMO they still do). Specifically, I think quoting 3 words of their "has lots of caffeine" descriptive sign out-of-context was incredibly dishonest. Might as well comment that a "Do Not Enter" sign reads "Enter". I mean it TECHNICALLY does, but let's give the reader the full story and let us decide, and the "Do not" is important. Just like the second half of "Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee" is more contextually important than merely "Plant-based and clean".

Is it possible the signs were smudged, missing, facing the wrong direction, or too small? Yeah, sure. But that's not what the article is representing as the truth. Some of the quotes comparing the lemonade with the lower-caffeine "dark coffee" even seem nonsensical because the article is hiding the full context of the above quote, that the lemonade is advertised as "as much caffeine as our dark coffee".

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just want to pop in and remind people that the supposed scourge of "frivolous lawsuits" was just a horribly effective PR stunt to drive down corporate accountability. If you feel wronged, sue if you can. Let a judge or jury decide.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

However, it's about preponderance of evidence, not "your favorite team". Even if we have valid reasons not to like Panera, whether THIS lawsuit has merit should only have to do with the facts of the situation.

And the article was a lying sack of turd in response to that question. The article being sleazy doesn't mean Panera is innocent, but it doesn't mean they ain't.

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

To that, I largely agree. But, given the state of income inequality and the general treatment of humans as mere consumers, to be manipulated and harvested… I think it’d be a disservice to us to view any corporate behavior with anything less than extreme skepticism.

Maybe even go as far as to work off the notion that corporations are guilty until proven innocent. Not individuals, but just the corporate entity.

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago

Least based take

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Absolutely. But sometimes "the bad guy" is innocent. Not every murder victim falls at Charlie Manson's feet. Not person now dead that Charlie Manson once met was murdered by him. The problem is that we are so emotionally wired for revenge. Just look at a prosecutor whenever someone is DNA exonerated, screaming "we're letting a monster free today!"

We need to fix the relationship between people and businesses, as the latter most certainly does exploit us. Socializing and forced ownership-sharing would be a great start. But I would never go so far as "guilty until proven innocent". I think the preponderance standard should be enough. But that's just me.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also the part where she had the same thing to drink before.

Conroy said Katz had bought at least one other Charged Lemonade in the days before her cardiac arrest.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I missed that line, and it blows the thing wide open. There's no way someone with a heart condition who is avoiding caffeine couldn't tell a LARGE Charged Lemonade was caffeinated after buying it on multiple occasions. Even if you're "resistant" to caffeine, you'd feel something.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

That's because clickbait was a thing even before you clicked to get news.