488
A rough life
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
488 points (99.2% liked)
People Twitter
10384 readers
1883 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It was my understanding that no, it did not have splinters, but that someone began marketing it as "splinter free" in the same way I could begin advertising my cereal brand as "asbestos free" and while I'm not outright SAYING the competition contains asbestos, it's implied. And if anyone reads it and chooses my brand because of their assumption, that's just a bonus and not at all my fault.
Using paper specifically for use with toilets was first written about around 1500 years ago, but the casual way it was written about tells me that it was commonly used for some time before that. If I had a guess, probably for at least 150 years, but China has been making paper for almost 2,000 years, so who knows when someone first tried it on their ass.
If normal paper was splinter free, it stands to reason that toilet paper, which must be thinner and less rough by necessity, would also have been splinter free.
Also you can't even make these claims in countries with sensible advertising restrictions. Advertising that your product does not violate the law is illegal here for instance.
I sense a paradox incoming...
So, if I advertise that my product doesn't violate the law, that's illegal. Which means it does violate the law, so ... no longer illegal?
No, you're just violating the law twice that way: once for claiming it doesn't violate the law, and once for false advertising.
so without getting too pedantic it should just be an unneeded assumption that all products comply with the law?
Advertising that your product is legal is illegal, to know if the product is legal you check the certification marks on the product/product container (ex: CE)
that makes too much sense for government
My government suck ass in a lot of things, but they are pretty good with regulations (if they make them), it wouldn't be too irrealistic for Italy to make something like this (just look at the regulations for buildings...), idk if they added something like that too but I hope they did
Your product wouldn't violate the law but your advertisement would.
Yup, that's pretty much it. Adverts can be illegal without the product itself violating any laws.