apple, google, microsoft, dell, and tesla are being sued for using cobalt mined with child labor

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

yes

only because it happened within their own, first world, country

show me an african, asian, mid eastern country doing the same

 

as long as affected countries do nothing to solve the problem in their own garden, in this case RDC, nothing will ever change.

You've missed the point,  when responsible material sourcing becomes as popular in social discourse as LGBT and compelled speech has become then the pressure from companies to source away from the congo will force a change. That's how it works.  

[RonnieOP]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

So what are you arguing here?  Are you suggesting people should just ignore the problem?  Is addressing the problem that futile?

 

The goal to induce social change is to make it socially unpopular first,  that requires lawsuits like this to help keep the momentum up.   Did you know that a lot of today's LGBTQSU discourse (the new compelled speech laws in Canada and accusations of violence from using only words) started out exactly the same. People also said the similar things about same sex marriage,  "it doesn't matter how much they try to sue people still won't accept it",  fast forward  2 decades and CEO's get the arse for opposing it.

 

It may seem on the surface like a hopeless case aimed at the wrong end of the supply chain, but even if they lose it still stands as a prop to further discourse in the battle against such practices.   Social reform does not require a court win, just the case to have happened. 

 

 

I dont think its fair to compare this to gay rights. And i highly doubt this will turn out the same. People wont vote with their wallets on this case. Me and you wont even after reading this. And most people will not even know this case is even a thing. 

 

But my main argument is they are going after the wrong people. They should be going after the mine not apple and co. I gave the example earlier that i get alot of products for work from local farmers. If it turns out they are doing some messed up things to get me the product i would not get sued. Why would i? I bought some pc parts off CL. If the seller stole them from best buy the cops dont come after me. (Atleast not in my country). 

 

I also think Canadas compelled speech is a load of BS but lets not get in to that since mods are trigger happy and will shut down this thread in a heart beat over that discussion lol.

[Zodiark1593]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

You've missed the point,  when responsible material sourcing becomes as popular in social discourse as LGBT and compelled speech has become then the pressure from companies to source away from the congo will force a change. That's how it works.  

Given the majority of Cobalt is mined in Congo and China,  will sourcing away from those locations result in higher prices for the consumer? Customers of high end devices probably won't care much about price increases, though customers buying on the low end will be quite sensitive to price increases, perhaps more so than the percieved justification of paying more.

 

One particular concern is that, especially once Tesla is factored in, cutting off China and Cpngo mines may cause demand for Cobalt to outstrip supply, in which case, can be quite damaging to the industry 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

I dont think its fair to compare this to gay rights. And i highly doubt this will turn out the same. People wont vote with their wallets on this case. Me and you wont even after reading this. And most people will not even know this case is even a thing. 

With regard to changing social narrative they are exactly the same.   

 

9 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

But my main argument is they are going after the wrong people. They should be going after the mine not apple and co. I gave the example earlier that i get alot of products for work from local farmers. If it turns out they are doing some messed up things to get me the product i would not get sued. Why would i? I bought some pc parts off CL. If the seller stole them from best buy the cops dont come after me. (Atleast not in my country). 

 

I also think Canadas compelled speech is a load of BS but lets not get in to that since mods are trigger happy and will shut down this thread in a heart beat over that discussion lol.

The people you want them to go after is futile. no matter what the actual motivation is for the lawsuit.  However if the motivation is to maintain momentum on a social narrative change (making it actually unpopular not to do something about the working conditions in those countries), then it is a valid action as it is not frivolous and maintains the momentum of the lobby. .

 

50 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Given the majority of Cobalt is mined in Congo and China,  will sourcing away from those locations result in higher prices for the consumer? Customers of high end devices probably won't care much about price increases, though customers buying on the low end will be quite sensitive to price increases, perhaps more so than the percieved justification of paying more.

 

One particular concern is that, especially once Tesla is factored in, cutting off China and Congo mines may cause demand for Cobalt to outstrip supply, in which case, can be quite damaging to the industry 

It will cause a cost increase,  if we look at coffee sales, by marketing that coffee is fair trade coffee, they have been able to charge more and generate more business.  Believe it or not but social narrative is huge driver in market forces.  That is why big companies always jump on social trends.   Sometimes they misjudge and in their virtue signalling they pick the wrong target (like gillete) but for the most part it works.  If apple can charge another $50 for their phone and claim in all honesty that they  are sourcing cobalt from a fair trade type agreement they will not lose sales.  Sure they will lose some to the low end, but they will also gain some from other top end competitors.

 

It is inevitable for all products to end up like this,  if will look at the trajectory of social change and the efforts of companies to retain control in the face of them.   E.G in Australia you will have trouble finding chicken that is not RSPCA approved in the super market.   It costs more, but the consumer demand for free range eggs and RSPCA approved chicken is so high that it's not worth them stocking the cheaper non approved chicken.     All products seem to go down the same path.

 

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

With regard to changing social narrative they are exactly the same.   

 

The people you want them to go after is futile. no matter what the actual motivation is for the lawsuit.  However if the motivation is to maintain momentum on a social narrative change (making it actually unpopular not to do something about the working conditions in those countries), then it is a valid action as it is not frivolous and maintains the momentum of the lobby. .

 

It will cause a cost increase,  if we look at coffee sales, by marketing that coffee is fair trade coffee, they have been able to charge more and generate more business.  Believe it or not but social narrative is huge driver in market forces.  That is why big companies always jump on social trends.   Sometimes they misjudge and in their virtue signalling they pick the wrong target (like gillete) but for the most part it works.  If apple can charge another $50 for their phone and claim in all honesty that they  are sourcing cobalt from a fair trade type agreement they will not lose sales.  Sure they will lose some to the low end, but they will also gain some from other top end competitors.

 

It is inevitable for all products to end up like this,  if will look at the trajectory of social change and the efforts of companies to retain control in the face of them.   E.G in Australia you will have trouble finding chicken that is not RSPCA approved in the super market.   It costs more, but the consumer demand for free range eggs and RSPCA approved chicken is so high that it's not worth them stocking the cheaper non approved chicken.     All products seem to go down the same path.

 

In terms of people caring. Its not even comparable.

 

The people wanting to have equal rights for groups gave up nothing. It cost them nothing. 

Now in this case people would have to go without the tech they use every single day of their life. Or pay more for all of it.  Most people are not going to be behind any of that. Most people dont care and most people arent going to even know this lawsuit is a thing. Itll be thrown out and most will never of heard of it.

 

I mean heres a perfect example. You know about these horrible practices. Are you going to stop using windows? Are you going to avoid android and ios phones? 

 

We are all using products from these companies (and others not named) and none of us are going to stop even after knowing this.

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

In terms of people caring. Its not even comparable.

If that's what you want to believe, what this space over the next few decades (assuming cobalt is still a necessary material).

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

The people wanting to have equal rights for groups gave up nothing. It cost them nothing. 

How does that relate?  Your missing the point.  20 years ago people said all the same things about gay rights that you are saying about this, things like: it's futile, no one cares, you can't have it because money reasons A, B and C.  Now CEO's have to walk from their job if they say something unpopular about it.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Now in this case people would have to go without the tech they use every single day of their life. Or pay more for all of it.  Most people are not going to be behind any of that. Most people dont care and most people arent going to even know this lawsuit is a thing. Itll be thrown out and most will never of heard of it.

No one has to go without anything.  you do realize that to improve working conditions in said mines the end product cost wold be so large that people wouldn't buy it. 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I mean heres a perfect example. You know about these horrible practices. Are you going to stop using windows? Are you going to avoid android and ios phones? 

 

We are all using products from these companies (and others not named) and none of us are going to stop even after knowing this.

 

 

 

I don't think you understand the problem nor the power of social narrative.    No one has to stop using anything,  I'm not sure where you even got that idea from.

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If that's what you want to believe, what this space over the next few decades (assuming cobalt is still a necessary material).

 

How does that relate?  Your missing the point.  20 years ago people said all the same things about gay rights that you are saying about this, things like: it's futile, no one cares, you can't have it because money reasons A, B and C.  Now CEO's have to walk from their job if they say something unpopular about it.  

 

 

No one has to go without anything.  you do realize that to improve working conditions in said mines the end product cost wold be so large that people wouldn't buy it. 

 

I don't think you understand the problem nor the power of social narrative.    No one has to stop using anything,  I'm not sure where you even got that idea from.

Social narrative does have power in alot of cases. But not in this case. 

 

Lets assume this case gets thrown out (which i think most people here think it will) but everyone knows about it. Its on every news channel every night. Everyone knows about the horrible working conditions that went in to the making of the products they are using. They will still continue to use those products.

 

Again you know about it. Lets assume its not going to end anytime soon..hell lets say it gets worse. Are you going to give up these tech products? Do you think everyone else will?

 

No they wont. People wont vote with their wallets. You could go to an apple store with video proof of a child being worked for 15 hours a day for $1 to make the materials that go into the iphone and there probably wont be a single person that changes their mind and not buy the iphone. 

[mr moose]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Social narrative does have power in alot of cases. But not in this case. 

Not right now it doesn't, that is my point.  In order for it to make a change they have to make it part of the social narrative,  like I said a few posts back:

 

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

You've missed the point,  when responsible material sourcing becomes as popular in social discourse as LGBT and compelled speech has become then the pressure from companies to source away from the congo will force a change. That's how it works.  

 

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

With regard to changing social narrative they are exactly the same.   

 

The people you want them to go after is futile. no matter what the actual motivation is for the lawsuit.  However if the motivation is to maintain momentum on a social narrative change (making it actually unpopular not to do something about the working conditions in those countries), then it is a valid action as it is not frivolous and maintains the momentum of the lobby. .

 

 

 

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Lets assume this case gets thrown out (which i think most people here think it will) but everyone knows about it. Its on every news channel every night. Everyone knows about the horrible working conditions that went in to the making of the products they are using. They will still continue to use those products.

Why would anyone have to stop using products? that's not how social narrative changes things boycotts rarely ever work which is why these people are not calling for a boycott but taking the companies to court instead.   Social narrative changes the mindset of the people, when that changes companies do their research and realize if they change said compnent of their business they will gain PR points and new customers.  That is how change is effected.  Boycotting products never changed anything.

 

 

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Again you know about it. Lets assume its not going to end anytime soon..hell lets say it gets worse. Are you going to give up these tech products? Do you think everyone else will?

 

It's not going to end for a few decades.

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

No they wont. People wont vote with their wallets. You could go to an apple store with video proof of a child being worked for 15 hours a day for $1 to make the materials that go into the iphone and there probably wont be a single person that changes their mind and not buy the iphone. 

It's not about voting with wallets or giving up products.  I don't know how many times I have to say that.  Social narrative drives change through making things unpopular. 

 

 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

Not right now it doesn't, that is my point.  In order for it to make a change they have to make it part of the social narrative,  like I said a few posts back:

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone have to stop using products? that's not how social narrative changes things boycotts rarely ever work which is why these people are not calling for a boycott but taking the companies to court instead.   Social narrative changes the mindset of the people, when that changes companies do their research and realize if they change said compnent of their business they will gain PR points and new customers.  That is how change is effected.  Boycotting products never changed anything.

 

 

 

 

It's not going to end for a few decades.

 

It's not about voting with wallets or giving up products.  I don't know how many times I have to say that.  Social narrative drives change through making things unpopular. 

 

 

Im saying even if they dont change the practice people will keep buying the products. And that is all the companies care about.

 

If people dont pressure their bank account why would they change?

 

Do you really think Apple cares if they are socially hated but people are still giving them billions of dollars a year? no they dont.

 

Your logic here is that they are going to change their practices because socially they will be hated. That will never work.

 

The ONLY way you are going to make a company change its ways is by affecting their bank account and share holders.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Im saying even if they dont change the practice people will keep buying the products. And that is all the companies care about.

 

If people dont pressure their bank account why would they change?

 

Do you really think Apple cares if they are socially hated but people are still giving them billions of dollars a year? no they dont.

 

Your logic here is that they are going to change their practices because socially they will be hated. That will never work.

 

The ONLY way you are going to make a company change its ways is by affecting their bank account and share holders.

 

 

 

Your coming at the problem from the wrong end.  I don't know why you only see reducing someones money as a carrot to change.  But that is a very narrow view of what is a  much larger situation.   No one demanded coffee traders move to free trade coffee, no one demanded business start promoting LGBT rights. no one demanded banks start offering green loans.  What these companies saw was that offering these products sold more.  Maintaining the old way was not generating new positive PR for the company in the same way jumping on the bandwagon did.   Social narrative by itself created a mindset that created a demand for those products even though they cost more.

 

 

[RonnieOP]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your coming at the problem from the wrong end.  I don't know why you only see reducing someones money as a carrot to change.  But that is a very narrow view of what is a  much larger situation.   No one demanded coffee traders move to free trade coffee, no one demanded business start promoting LGBT rights. no one demanded banks start offering green loans.  What these companies saw was that offering these products sold more.  Maintaining the old way was not generating new positive PR for the company in the same way jumping on the bandwagon did.   Social narrative by itself created a mindset that created a demand for those products even though they cost more.

 

 

 

Some of them did those things. but not all of them. Had it been damaging to their bank accounts all of them would have.

 

I get what your trying to say. I just dont agree with it. I do not believe enough people will care enough to make it such an issue that they will change. I think that technology will have moved on from cobalt before Apple and co make the changes.

 

I could be wrong I could be right. We dont know at this moment. But I personally believe the only way that these companies are going to change is via forced government policy or if consumers start effecting the companies bottom dollar.

 

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

Some of them did those things. but not all of them. Had it been damaging to their bank accounts all of them would have.

 

I get what your trying to say. I just dont agree with it. I do not believe enough people will care enough to make it such an issue that they will change. I think that technology will have moved on from cobalt before Apple and co make the changes.

 

 

Again, that is what they said about gay rights. They genuinely didn't think enough people would care enough to make in an issue let alone an issue that cost you your job.

 

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I could be wrong I could be right. We dont know at this moment. But I personally believe the only way that these companies are going to change is via forced government policy or if consumers start effecting the companies bottom dollar.

 

 

Only time will tell, I just base my observations of history.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

 

Again, that is what they said about gay rights. They genuinely didn't think enough people would care enough to make in an issue let alone an issue that cost you your job.

 

 

Only time will tell, I just base my observations of history.

We will see.

 

Either way I appreciate the friendly debate. 

[suicidalfranco]

On 12/28/2019 at 9:02 AM, mr moose said:

You've missed the point,  when responsible material sourcing becomes as popular in social discourse as LGBT and compelled speech has become then the pressure from companies to source away from the congo will force a change. That's how it works.  

then answer this: how well as it worked for the textile industry? have they ever stopped using sweatshops from china with all the negative social pressure it has been receiving from as far back as i can remember?

 

And the LGBT rights was a problem present within first world countries and got solved only in those first world countries. 

 

The only way things will change will be when countries like the RDC and China will start making and enforcing labour laws to protect their workers. Till then nobody will care, the same people complaining and acting shocked will keep buying the brand new iPhone to post on twitter how it bleeds their heart to find out that child miners are still thing, just like how they've kept buying Nikes to this day

[Guest]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

then answer this: how well as it worked for the textile industry? have they ever stopped using sweatshops from china with all the negative social pressure it has been receiving from as far back as i can remember?

 

And the LGBT rights was a problem present within first world countries and got solved only in those first world countries. 

 

The only way things will change will be when countries like the RDC and China will start making and enforcing labour laws to protect their workers. Till then nobody will care, the same people complaining and acting shocked will keep buying the brand new iPhone to post on twitter how it bleeds their heart to find out that child miners are still thing, just like how they've kept buying Nikes to this day

LGBT rights have only been addressed partially in western first world countries. Currently there is a long way to go, especially as far as the churches are concerned as well as in the military. On the surface, things have changed but there are still underlying issues. This is very different to rights for workers, which are power and financial issues. Both are very hard to address but for very different reasons. The former are beliefs, almost nothing can change deep seated beliefs hammered into children from birth. The latter is greed, that is also innate in the human species. It is part of what makes the species successful.  Morals will only have an effect on those who can afford to have them, on people who are not struggling to make ends meet or who have so much disposables that they use moral arguments to their own advantage.

[suicidalfranco]

5 hours ago, Phill104 said:

LGBT rights have only been addressed partially in western first world countries. Currently there is a long way to go, especially as far as the churches are concerned as well as in the military. On the surface, things have changed but there are still underlying issues. This is very different to rights for workers, which are power and financial issues. Both are very hard to address but for very different reasons. The former are beliefs, almost nothing can change deep seated beliefs hammered into children from birth. The latter is greed, that is also innate in the human species. It is part of what makes the species successful.  Morals will only have an effect on those who can afford to have them, on people who are not struggling to make ends meet or who have so much disposables that they use moral arguments to their own advantage.

And for the third time: the LGBT case only got where it got today because it was a propped within the western nations/first word countries, brought up by the local population, because it affected members of their respective population, pushed to their respective governing bodies and that's that. It didn't happen because someone saw a gay person getting killed in a third world country, went back to france and started campaigning to stop violence against gays in that country.

 

Change will begin only when the congolese government will take the matter on their own hand and do what western powers did before them, start regulating labour laws, applying them effectively and retroactively, and remove the corruption that allow some to turn a blind eye when it happens right bellow their nose.

 

We can act shocked all we want, but as we've seen with the like of Nike, H&M or OVS, nothing will change and they'll move from one sweatshop in China to another sweatshop in India

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

And for the third time: the LGBT case only got where it got today because it was a propped within the western nations/first word countries, brought up by the local population, because it affected members of their respective population, pushed to their respective governing bodies and that's that. It didn't happen because someone saw a gay person getting killed in a third world country, went back to france and started campaigning to stop violence against gays in that country.

 

Change will begin only when the congolese government will take the matter on their own hand and do what western powers did before them, start regulating labour laws, applying them effectively and retroactively, and remove the corruption that allow some to turn a blind eye when it happens right bellow their nose.

 

We can act shocked all we want, but as we've seen with the like of Nike, H&M or OVS, nothing will change and they'll move from one sweatshop in China to another sweatshop in India

What do you mean “and for the third time”? I was trying to make a point that these two subjects are very different, how they will need to be dealt with, and whether there is even the will to do so, is very different.

 

As for the Congolese government, it is still a very ineffective and unstable one. May parts of the country are ruled by local militias, it is a bit of a mess. Illiteracy is very high making things more complex. Pressure from outside will not change much. Instead the world should be helping raise education levels so the population can empower themselves. It is probably the only way change can be driven.

 

Thing is, billions is being spent on finding alternatives to cobalt and as such battery technology will evolve far faster then the Congo will change. So will the world bother to invest in the country? Somehow I doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, IBM and at least five other large companies as well as a few smaller ones (one such company is just a couple of miles from me) have already announced new technologies that do not require heavy metals such as cobalt. So probably inside ten years the users of cobalt will not be the tech industry. So demands will drop meaning it he Congo will probably be left to its own devices.

[suicidalfranco]

17 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

What do you mean “and for the third time”? I was trying to make a point that these two subjects are very different, how they will need to be dealt with, and whether there is even the will to do so, is very different.

I mean out of the 3 posts i made on this thread, that was the thrid i had to expose the same explanation that LGBT rights is not the same as cheap outsourced labour. One was happening in the western nations own backyard, the other is continents away from the western nations backyard. 

 

22 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

As for the Congolese government, it is still a very ineffective and unstable one. May parts of the country are ruled by local militias, it is a bit of a mess. Illiteracy is very high making things more complex. Pressure from outside will not change much. Instead the world should be helping raise education levels so the population can empower themselves. It is probably the only way change can be driven.

But that's not what is happening with this lawsuits. I would understand if the one suing were the congolese, but that's not the case.

 

28 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Thing is, billions is being spent on finding alternatives to cobalt and as such battery technology will evolve far faster then the Congo will change. So will the world bother to invest in the country? Somehow I doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, IBM and at least five other large companies as well as a few smaller ones (one such company is just a couple of miles from me) have already announced new technologies that do not require heavy metals such as cobalt. So probably inside ten years the users of cobalt will not be the tech industry. So demands will drop meaning it he Congo will probably be left to its own devices.

normal progression/evolution

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

I mean out of the 3 posts i made on this thread, that was the thrid i had to expose the same explanation that LGBT rights is not the same as cheap outsourced labour. One was happening in the western nations own backyard, the other is continents away from the western nations backyard. 

 

Which shows you didn’t understand that I was saying the same thing, you didn’t need to expose anything.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

then answer this: how well as it worked for the textile industry? have they ever stopped using sweatshops from china with all the negative social pressure it has been receiving from as far back as i can remember?

 

And the LGBT rights was a problem present within first world countries and got solved only in those first world countries. 

 

The only way things will change will be when countries like the RDC and China will start making and enforcing labour laws to protect their workers. Till then nobody will care, the same people complaining and acting shocked will keep buying the brand new iPhone to post on twitter how it bleeds their heart to find out that child miners are still thing, just like how they've kept buying Nikes to this day

Can't talk about other countries but in Australia it has. 

 

Here's an article talking about the rise in demand for ethical goods and the demand for ethical investments:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/07/start-ethical-business-financially-successful-socially

 

Target and Kmart are both experience massive growth after moving to this model of sourcing (it plays right into marketing) and their opposition stores who didn't are starting to close down shops.

 

https://www.target.com.au/company/ethical-sourcing

 

Plus there is all the other examples I listed earlier, banks offering completely carbon offset products:

 

https://www.responsiblereturns.com.au/search?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwf7_puTb5gIVkB0rCh097g5JEAAYASAAEgLi6PD_BwE

 

 

 

I know a lot of people are cynical about this sort of stuff, but the reality is it is becoming a demand trait in products.  people don't mind spending more for ethical products, even though it turns out that when the demand is there the difference in cost isn't that much.  A few simple changes in business operations can absorb the cost or turn it into a tax write off thus maintaining company profits (in the case of kmart growing them) and offering consumers choice.

 

 

social narrative plays a huge role in how much effort a company puts into a product sourcing.    A countries  laws or law enforcement doesn't provide a block to improving conditions.  If a company wants to make working conditions better they can, they don't have to change laws to do that. 

 

EDIT: and yes it is exactly the same as the social narrative that surrounded LBGT rights.    It is also the same narrative that surrounded coffee farming,  the textile industry, the climate change, because for a very long time majority of the population didn't think climate change was ever going to be thing and said the same things people are saying about this I.E it will never change, we can't do anything about it etc etc.   When the social narrative changes so does the marketing model of the companies change, changing products to maintain sales is the natural state of business. 

 

 

[Tieox]

I have even more distaste for companies that are made aware that this is going on, and continue because their bottom line is more important than the slavery of a ethnic group of people who will develop a deep rooted hatred of them.

 

Those people, those boardroom suit wearing wastes of oxygen and semen, can get into the fucking sea wearing concrete shoes. 

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, Kierax said:

I have even more distaste for companies that are made aware that this is going on, and continue because their bottom line is more important than the slavery of a ethnic group of people who will develop a deep rooted hatred of them.

 

Those people, those boardroom suit wearing wastes of oxygen and semen, can get into the fucking sea wearing concrete shoes. 

The problem here isn't the tech companies though. The stuff @mr moose are saying about how companies will now switch to "ethical mining" isn't going to happen because of this either, for the simple reason that Microsoft/Google/Tesla/Apple/Dell/etc are not the producers here.

The tech companies are the consumers in the lawsuit, which is why I don't think it makes any sense. 

 

The reason why I have said that this lawsuit is moronic and NEEDS to happen at the distributor level is because that is where the change must happen. 

 

Let's look at it this way. With things like fare trade coffee, coffee shops noticed that some customers boycotted places like starbucks because they didn't sell fare trade coffee. So starbucks ran a quick estimation and realized that the increased profit from catering to the boycotters who refused to buy anything but fare trade coffee was greater than the increased cost. 

Catering to a larger audience = more revenue = potentially more profits. 

 

This won't happen in this case because consumers have nowhere to go. Nobody is going to leave Google, Microsoft or Apple for a company that uses "fare trade minerals" because no such company exists. 

 

But even if we consumers threatened to stop using the tech companies products the issue is still at the supply chain, so what the fuck are these companies suppose to do? They can't do jack shit because cobolt mining is essentially a monopoly. The tech companies are in the same situation we are in. If they organize a boycott they have no place to go. No "ethical mining" company comes even close to meeting demand. We're not talking about a small under supply either. We're talking boycotting the companies that have a combined market share of like 95%. 

 

We consumers are no threat to the tech company because you and I are forced to use products from the likes of Google and Microsoft. We have no choice regardless of what they do. 

 

The tech companies are no threat to the mining companies because tech companies are forced to buy cobalt from them regardless of what they do. 

[Tieox]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

The problem here isn't the tech companies though. The stuff @mr moose are saying about how companies will now switch to "ethical mining" isn't going to happen because of this either, for the simple reason that Microsoft/Google/Tesla/Apple/Dell/etc are not the producers here.

The tech companies are the consumers in the lawsuit, which is why I don't think it makes any sense. 

 

The reason why I have said that this lawsuit is moronic and NEEDS to happen at the distributor level is because that is where the change must happen. 

 

Let's look at it this way. With things like fare trade coffee, coffee shops noticed that some customers boycotted places like starbucks because they didn't sell fare trade coffee. So starbucks ran a quick estimation and realized that the increased profit from catering to the boycotters who refused to buy anything but fare trade coffee was greater than the increased cost. 

Catering to a larger audience = more revenue = potentially more profits. 

 

This won't happen in this case because consumers have nowhere to go. Nobody is going to leave Google, Microsoft or Apple for a company that uses "fare trade minerals" because no such company exists. 

 

But even if we consumers threatened to stop using the tech companies products the issue is still at the supply chain, so what the fuck are these companies suppose to do? They can't do jack shit because cobolt mining is essentially a monopoly. The tech companies are in the same situation we are in. If they organize a boycott they have no place to go. No "ethical mining" company comes even close to meeting demand. We're not talking about a small under supply either. We're talking boycotting the companies that have a combined market share of like 95%. 

 

We consumers are no threat to the tech company because you and I are forced to use products from the likes of Google and Microsoft. We have no choice regardless of what they do. 

 

The tech companies are no threat to the mining companies because tech companies are forced to buy cobalt from them regardless of what they do. 

You make a fair point that I feel is best summarised by :

 

 

And we are Jerry.  

 

 

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The problem here isn't the tech companies though. The stuff @mr moose are saying about how companies will now switch to "ethical mining" isn't going to happen because of this either, for the simple reason that Microsoft/Google/Tesla/Apple/Dell/etc are not the producers here.

The tech companies are the consumers in the lawsuit, which is why I don't think it makes any sense. 

You really have missed the point of what I am saying.

 

Quote

The reason why I have said that this lawsuit is moronic and NEEDS to happen at the distributor level is because that is where the change must happen. 

I agree, it should happen at the distributor level, but the reality is that is futile.  It will go nowhere because of the obvious aforementioned reasons.  This case is likely just a another part of a bigger lobby.

Quote

Let's look at it this way. With things like fare trade coffee, coffee shops noticed that some customers boycotted places like starbucks because they didn't sell fare trade coffee. So starbucks ran a quick estimation and realized that the increased profit from catering to the boycotters who refused to buy anything but fare trade coffee was greater than the increased cost. 

It wasn't boycotts that caused that change, it was the $$ they could make from selling fair trade coffee.  Boycotting has rarely ever effected companies of that size.

 

Quote

Catering to a larger audience = more revenue = potentially more profits. 

 

This won't happen in this case because consumers have nowhere to go. Nobody is going to leave Google, Microsoft or Apple for a company that uses "fare trade minerals" because no such company exists. 

To this I have already addressed:

 

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not right now it doesn't, that is my point.  In order for it to make a change they have to make it part of the social narrative,  like I said a few posts back:

 

 

 

 

Why would anyone have to stop using products? that's not how social narrative changes things boycotts rarely ever work which is why these people are not calling for a boycott but taking the companies to court instead.   Social narrative changes the mindset of the people, when that changes companies do their research and realize if they change said compnent of their business they will gain PR points and new customers.  That is how change is effected.  Boycotting products never changed anything.

 

 

 

 

It's not going to end for a few decades.

 

It's not about voting with wallets or giving up products.  I don't know how many times I have to say that.  Social narrative drives change through making things unpopular. 

 

No one needs to stop using products for this to make a difference.  MS and Apple don't only sell one products and they have competition in the electronic device market.  If apple start selling ethically sourced products then they will capitalize on a growing market trend when the narrative becomes popular. Which is the aim of things like these court cases (obviously if they win the case and force a change outright that is an even bigger win, but not essential in the long term scheme).

 

 

Quote

But even if we consumers threatened to stop using the tech companies products the issue is still at the supply chain, so what the fuck are these companies suppose to do?

They do what target did, and what the banks are doing, they go in and make the materials/product sourcing fairer.

Quote

They can't do jack shit because cobolt mining is essentially a monopoly. The tech companies are in the same situation we are in. If they organize a boycott they have no place to go. No "ethical mining" company comes even close to meeting demand. We're not talking about a small under supply either. We're talking boycotting the companies that have a combined market share of like 95%. 

 

We consumers are no threat to the tech company because you and I are forced to use products from the likes of Google and Microsoft. We have no choice regardless of what they do. 

 

The tech companies are no threat to the mining companies because tech companies are forced to buy cobalt from them regardless of what they do. 

Maybe, but now you are arguing for a do nothing approach because you perceive all efforts as nihilist and futile.  There is nothing to say that the congo and china aren't going to play ball with their consumers to guarantee supply (because they aren't the same supplier and they do compete with each other for the sales) if it doesn't actually cost them anything.

 

EDIT: just to add, one of the biggest organized boycotts in consumer history would have to be the nestle boycott that some people still maintain today.  even with such a huge boycott nestle still managed to grow into one of the largest food companies int he world.  It didn't make a lick of difference and nestle had plenty of competition.    What makes companies change their practices is a big carrot in front of them, not the whispering threat behind them.

[TheMcSame]

Kind of a given tbh. Cobalt isn't really the sort of material you can just scoot over and go elsewhere for. Pretty sure that, in the last few years, with the recent increase in demand for cobalt (for obvious reasons), demand has caught up, if not surpassed supply. When you're at the point, things like this are going to happen. That doesn't make it right mind you, but it just goes to show you that while batteries might be our temporary saviour (Mark my words, the electric car will be a repeat of the diesel engine. We were told how great and so much better diesels were for the environment, now we know what's really going on with them. Electric cars will be the same, might not be for a few decades, but soon enough we'll be blasted with info about how they're not nearly as good for the environment as we thought they were and whatever alternative is around at the time will be hailed as the next coming of Christ), we're simply relying on them far too much to have the luxury of avoiding ethical issues. It also goes to show that we need some of that new battery tech... You know... The sort that cropped up in some lab somewhere that you literally never hear about again? 

 

It's also pretty funny to see Apple mixed up in this considering there was rumours going around that they were planning on buying cobalt directly from the mines themselves for transparency when it came to ethical concerns.