8 ms·

Because the direct buyer is the one who has the most information and the most control. In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is

Because the direct buyer is the one who has the most information and the most control. In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is both unfair and ineffective.

mbostleman 7y ago
So now that you have the information, I trust you have stopped purchasing these products beginning today?
- richmarr 7y ago
  Information, and control. All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything. What are you proposing, that everyone with a smartphone or a computer be sued? How will that work?
  - mbostleman 7y ago
    What are you proposing, that if your vendor is sued you don't pay for it?
    - shantly 7y ago
      Vendors that don't get sued can compete better in the market and survive longer, and their prices won't go up (except maybe a little as rents if they have few competitors and those have been forced to raise their prices because they've lost a lot of lawsuits), right? [EDIT] I'd don't really give a fuck about DVs but I'd love if some of the people DVing my comments on this thread would explain how I've misunderstood orthodox "right"-wing approaches to market-based regulation and commons management, since I don't think I'm claiming anything particularly radical here—quite small-c conservative, actually—and would like to know whether and how I'm missing the mark on it.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything. All of the stock these corporations can buy may or may not contain this unethically-sourced cobalt. They don't know which, and their corporate buying choices don't affect anything. Judging from these comments, the bar seems to be set at "if you can't prove the product doesn't contain unethically-sourced materials, don't buy it". That standard would apply equally well to end users. Of course you can't simply trust that your suppliers aren't lying to you, or that their suppliers aren't lying to them, so you have to be personally involved in auditing the entire process from mining to final production and delivery. Or we could just be reasonable and agree that it's sufficient to avoid knowing or reckless involvement with unethical suppliers, and hold those who actually endanger their workers or lie about the sources of the materials they're selling responsible for their own crimes.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  hey, great job. You've turned a discussion about child exploitation into a discussion about whether some random person on the internet will stop buying electronics. It's great to see where your priorities are.
morcheeba 7y ago
These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me. Ore is sold to smelting companies, who sell ingots to sheet metal companies, who sell it to electronics component manufacturers, who sell it to contract manufacturers, who sell it to the giants. And that's the legal supply chain - add in some shell companies, forged documents, and resellers and it gets more complicated.
- richmarr 7y ago
  > These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me Well, they're (a) further up the supply chain that we are, and (b) have the resources to understand and influence their supply chain. You can be pedantic about the word "direct" if you like but I don't think that's useful.
  - yibg 7y ago
    But why draw the line there? If we are making the whole chain liable then why not make the phone case manufacturers and app development shops liable too? They are only one hop down the chain and have the resources too.
vinniejames 7y ago
The tech companies are only one hop away from the end user, they are not close to being the direct buyer for these operations

Because the direct buyer is the one who has the most information and the most control. In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is both unfair and ineffective.

mbostleman 7y ago

So now that you have the information, I trust you have stopped purchasing these products beginning today?

richmarr 7y ago
Information, and control. All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything. What are you proposing, that everyone with a smartphone or a computer be sued? How will that work?
- mbostleman 7y ago
  What are you proposing, that if your vendor is sued you don't pay for it?
  - shantly 7y ago
    Vendors that don't get sued can compete better in the market and survive longer, and their prices won't go up (except maybe a little as rents if they have few competitors and those have been forced to raise their prices because they've lost a lot of lawsuits), right? [EDIT] I'd don't really give a fuck about DVs but I'd love if some of the people DVing my comments on this thread would explain how I've misunderstood orthodox "right"-wing approaches to market-based regulation and commons management, since I don't think I'm claiming anything particularly radical here—quite small-c conservative, actually—and would like to know whether and how I'm missing the mark on it.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything. All of the stock these corporations can buy may or may not contain this unethically-sourced cobalt. They don't know which, and their corporate buying choices don't affect anything. Judging from these comments, the bar seems to be set at "if you can't prove the product doesn't contain unethically-sourced materials, don't buy it". That standard would apply equally well to end users. Of course you can't simply trust that your suppliers aren't lying to you, or that their suppliers aren't lying to them, so you have to be personally involved in auditing the entire process from mining to final production and delivery. Or we could just be reasonable and agree that it's sufficient to avoid knowing or reckless involvement with unethical suppliers, and hold those who actually endanger their workers or lie about the sources of the materials they're selling responsible for their own crimes.
celticmusic 7y ago
hey, great job. You've turned a discussion about child exploitation into a discussion about whether some random person on the internet will stop buying electronics. It's great to see where your priorities are.

morcheeba 7y ago

These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me. Ore is sold to smelting companies, who sell ingots to sheet metal companies, who sell it to electronics component manufacturers, who sell it to contract manufacturers, who sell it to the giants. And that's the legal supply chain - add in some shell companies, forged documents, and resellers and it gets more complicated.

richmarr 7y ago
> These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me Well, they're (a) further up the supply chain that we are, and (b) have the resources to understand and influence their supply chain. You can be pedantic about the word "direct" if you like but I don't think that's useful.
- yibg 7y ago
  But why draw the line there? If we are making the whole chain liable then why not make the phone case manufacturers and app development shops liable too? They are only one hop down the chain and have the resources too.

vinniejames 7y ago

The tech companies are only one hop away from the end user, they are not close to being the direct buyer for these operations