1187
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 05 Oct 2023
1187 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59020 readers
2999 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Get your head out of your ass. ALL companies will never do anything for any other reason besides profit. The size of said company doesn’t matter. A small company will fuck over its customers just as quickly if you let them.
This is just the "both sides of the same" argument with different dressing.
It's as false here as it is there. So you're going to tell me a company like fairphone is as unethical as Apple or Samsung?
Yes of course they work with two completely different yields but that's really the point The only way you can get to that yield is to be unethical so choose smaller brands choose ones that make decisions you agree with and help them grow.
There is no completely ethical capitalism but there definitely are choices that get us somewhere better.
Absolutely. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and even fair phone is profit driven. Even NPOs are profit driven. No one works for a loss in western society. No one. So literally every company will do everything it does for the sake of profitability. Even fairphone.
You have to realize that fairphone’s whole model is a marketing gimmick. Does it happen to align with some good values? Sure, but it’s still a gimmick to separate you from your money at the end of the day.
This is just false. Fairphone had audits that prove it's an improvement in both sustainability and worker conditions.
Of course consumerism always negatively impacts the environment but to make it all equivalent is to forsake all nuance. It's not at all to the same magnitude.
I don't believe capitalism is the answer to the world's problems but to not celebrate a positive initiative is throwing the baby out with bath water.
key word there is 'improvement'. it's still a for profit company and they will ultimately make whatever decisions are in the best interest of the company to make a profit.
they are undoubtedly better, but their baseline is still the same, to make money.
there is no nuance, at all, to the fact that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. it's pretty black and white. there are ways to be less unethical (e.g., fairphone), but not to be ethical.
That's just it though. One does more damage than the other unless you alone are single-handedly going to overthrow capitalism within the next week (which you know more power to you) this is still harm reduction and I'm happy for it.
Otherwise you just bitching about best case scenarios and living in a world that exists only in your head
You’re discussing nuance for a company you like when what I being discussed I the baseline problematic nature of commerce.
Is fair phone a better alternative? Yes, and I’ve said as much.
Is it ultimately different from apple in its goal to be profitable? No.
Both things exist and that’s ok.
I don't know if your purposely misunderstanding me or if I'm not explaining myself well but give it one last time and then just agreed to disagree.
Fairphone a company I don't even particularly like uses less rare metals, in factories that ensure better standards of living for the people who work there.
Is it everything I want? No. Does it make a measurable impact? Yes.
Therefore it is not the same. they may be a capitalist company and they could change their motto tomorrow of course any company can choose to do terrible things and may throughout the course of their company's lifetime.
As of right now with the options we have they physically do less harm.
We’re saying the same thing. I’m just emphasizing that they’re still capitalists who will make decisions based on profitability before social impact. It’s inherent because without profitability they can’t exist. Their stated mission (from a quick google) is to be profitable while making a positive impact.
They won’t abandon profitability for impact.
The size, profits, and overall global reach of a company heavily impacts how that company further impacts the world. Do you honestly think that, I don't know, American Girl dolls have had the same negative impact on the world as the East India Company?