1901
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 502 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Always remember what really happened with the McDonald's lady who sued because her "coffee was too hot".

McDonald's themselves started the campaign that the issue was laughable, and seeded the notion that it's ridiculous, how could she not know coffee hot?

What really happened was that the coffee was:

  • Served well above safe ranges to maximize profits, so the coffee could be served longer
  • Was served near boiling temperature
  • Was so hot that it FUSED HER LABIA requiring extensive surgery to repair.

She sued only for her hospital bills.

They started a smear campaign against her to convince the public that she was a moron and she just wanted a payday.

Don't trust corporations. Ever.

[-] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 222 points 4 months ago

Not to mention they were warned many times before about serving coffee that's too hot. The woman got such a huge settlement because the judge was tired of McDonald's crap

[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 103 points 4 months ago

Also they calculated the cost of lawsuits like that and decided they would make more money selling it that hot than they would lose in lawsuits over how hot the coffee was.

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 111 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What's that old quote? "A lie can make it around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes", or something like that? I believe that was pre-internet too.

It also happens with politics. I constantly see provocative headlines get lots of attention in one circle, and then the later corrections only get passed around in the opposite circle, if at all.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 21 points 4 months ago

Look at just yesterday. One clickbait site said Beyonce was going to perform at the dnc, and by the time the truth and correction made it around it was already past time

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

We desperately need a return of journalistic ethics and bland, just-the-facts news.

[-] Landless2029@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

This is why in prefer NPR and BBC

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago

I wouldn't call those the most reliable. Better than some

[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

What’s more reliable than NPR?

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Nothing is reliable that's the problem. NPR is a propaganda machine. There are worse ones to be far

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Critical thinking and media literacy. Just 2 days ago I heard NPR try to gaslight me that Gaza wasn’t a genocide.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 16 points 4 months ago

Its even worse in science. Lots of crazy headlines that are later debunked quietly

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

those headlines can also be debunked loudly and yet, anti-vaxxers still exist, somehow

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

I wasn't talking about vaccinations. I was talking about fusion and other buzzy topics.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 points 4 months ago

Generally that's news media misconstruing science.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago

Which directly impacts funding

That's the big issue. If a project doesn't have big headlines frequently it is killed.

[-] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think more likely is that the news outlets need the revenue from clicks, and are willing to trade their reputation to get them. Accurate science journalism doesn't pay, capitalism is a race to the bottom.

[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 13 points 4 months ago

Plus those corrections only show up as a footnote on articles without it being altered or removed. Its laughable.

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 1 points 4 months ago

That's weird. Ideally you should put it right next to the title, that there has been an addendum and the following might be incorrect/outdated.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 4 months ago

That depends on what your goal is, I think

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 4 months ago

I'd consider the goal be to:

  1. Keep the original article for historical and reference purposes
  2. Make sure that anyone who only cared to read the first sentence, didn't leave with confident misinformation.
[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago

Your goals are too honest for mass media 😅

[-] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago

Also, she got second degree burns, and she was not the first person to be injured by the coffee, and McDonald's was told multiple times that they served their coffee too hot.

During the trial, McDonald's showed zero care for the the people they injured, to the point that most of the fine that McDonald's ended up paying was punitive damages

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 37 points 4 months ago

I'm sorry, it fucking welded her pussy shut????

the news did not report on that part

[-] unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 4 months ago

Yes. Yes it did.

No, they did not report that in media.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 21 points 4 months ago

I knew about the story, did not know about that detail.. I can feel my own cunt quivering in pain imagining that.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

The media are corporations also.

[-] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Of course it didn't.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I dont understand this, coffee is generally made with near boiling hot water. Many coffee machines make the coffee in front of your eyes. Of course its served boiling hot, no?

I mean her accident is extremely unfortunate, but her needing money for medical bills is a problem with society, not mcdonalds.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Coffee is brewed near boiling, but the hottest it should be served is 60 degrees C, or around 140 degrees F. Basically her temperature was the same as it was literally coming out of the machine, no one takes a big gulp of coffee the second it comes out of the machine.

McDonalds kept their coffee as hot as possible to give the illusion it was fresher than it was. By keeping the coffee at 190-200F then they believed that customers would feel that the coffee was fresher, even though they knew it was unsafe to serve coffee that hot.

Larger places follow the same rules here, while coffee is brewed extremely hot it usually rests for a bit before serving unless a customer explicitly asks for it. In restaurants it's served for you. Even Starbucks most of their drinks are milk based which cools the coffee, except for Americanos which are just espresso and hot water, and you'll usually see those with an insulator cup to highlight that

Found this, which explains serving coffee better than I can. https://mtpak.coffee/2022/08/takeaway-cups-coffee-temperature-ideal-serving/

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago

Many places here you get your coffee straight from the machine that brews it (as in you press the button yourself), far too hot to drink immediately.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
1901 points (100.0% liked)

memes

10689 readers
1857 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS