• Canuck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    People who go into a crowdfunding campaign expecting either a product or a refund with no risk for just one or neither, aren’t the right audience for and shouldn’t be participating in crowdfunding.

    The delays and refund denials were not ideal, and perhaps they could have handled that better, but picking between complete insolvency delivering no product to anyone vs delivering the product to people who crowdfunded and pre-ordered, is the lesser of the two “evils” if people want to call it that, especially given the reality of the situation headed into COVID-19.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      People who go into a crowdfunding campaign expecting either a product or a refund with no risk for just one or neither, aren’t the right audience for and shouldn’t be participating in crowdfunding.

      Okay, even if you assume this caveat emptor bullshit excuse to be the case: these refunds were not nearly limited to crowdfunding campaign backers. These were people who saw Purism advertising a finished product that they could preorder/order. This is the same position as if I’d go to Fairphone’s website, order a Fairphone 6, never receive it, request a refund, and either get denied repeatedly or ghosted indefinitely.

      You can’t “buyer beware” a legally established American company advertising a product. That’s just called a scam. And that’s already generously ignoring the crowdfunding backers they scammed by giving zero transparency to.