151–160 of 300 posts
I like how people get outraged at US tech giants but gracefully ignore the fact that Glencore which actually is the beneficiary of exploiting the children is based in Europe. It's no small target either with annual revenue of 219.8 billion in 2018 vs Google's 136.
https://www.glencore.com/media-and-insights/news/Glencore-st...
IANAL, but it seems very obvious from both the article and the lawsuit that there is no foundation to this. The article acknowledges this is essentially new ground, but it doesn't even seem to be based on anything legal at all. Looking at the actual complaint (http://iradvocates.org/sites/iradvocates.org/files/stamped%2...) it is very telling that in a 79 page suit barely over 2 pages is related to "jurisdiction and venue". That is a major component of this case, in addition to the totally untested claims being attempted here in this case. Having barely over 2 pages sort of tells you right off the bat that they know this is seriously thin.
Moving to the actual claim, they assert the US court is appropriate based on 18 U.S. Code § 1596. That seems reasonable based on the text. So moving along to the complaints, they claim violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1581, § 1584, § 1589, and § 1590.
1581 and 1584 very clearly and in no uncertain language apply directly to the people employing and controlling the labor itself. This is just a bad faith claim in my opinion and should be tossed out with prejudice.
1589 deals with those who benefit from such activity, which is where we start to see some semblance of sanity from this lawsuit. However, the language clearly indicates that it must be a "venture". This usually means direct agreements, shared ownership, etc. That is not the case in how these tech companies are acquiring these materials so toss that one out as well, unless of course you are prepared to accept that the open market and global supply chain is a venture. Which would then, by logical extension, include anyone and everyone operating on the entirety of the supply chain and market.
1590 reverts back to the same position as 1581 and 1584, dealing directly with those who have direct control over said labor. Again, toss this out with prejudice.
The whole lawsuit is crap as far as I'm concerned. Even a basic reading of the law shows that this suit is trash, regardless of good intentions or not. The only chance in hell they have is somehow convincing the court that Google, Apple, Dell, etc. are all working together in a fiendishly evil "venture" and that they all have direct control over this child labor. Good luck with that.
Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd throw this entire lawsuit in the trash and force the plaintiff(s) to pay the defense fees, if they had requested it via counter-suit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is one of those feel-good solutions that lets us feel superior but doesn't actually help the people suffering. So because we can't fix their situation for them, we're allowed to actively make it worse? This is such a nonsense point of view. Exploitative industry is not like regular industry. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats, this is enriching one or two psychopathic monsters at the expense of the…
It's just unrealistic. Here's a challenge - cut cobalt out of your life. I'll bet you can't. Until you can do that, offering 'stop buying' as a solution is a waste of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It being hard to track is no excuse. We shouldn't be buying products from such abusive practices. We banned slavery, child labour and other abusive practices in our own countries, but by allowing the imports of such products from other countries, we're still indirectly making use of slavery and child labour. Recently I heard that every person in a wealthy country effectively makes use of two slaves this way. So these…
I don't disagree, but if we want to actually help, we need to work with the world the way it is, not the way we wish it was. Moral grandstanding helps us feel good more than it helps the people who are actually suffering. There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of the mineral trade AFAIK.
If you buy the logic behind the "resource curse", then reducing trade in such morally questionable resources could indirectly improve the state of the world.
Do we all feel better blaming the tech companies for this than blaming ourselves, the customers of the tech companies?
My house has 6 computer monitors and I won't even say how many tv sets. I should be completely aware of how much that cost in earth and human but I got to feel smug by recycling the happy color cardboard it was wrapped with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo. the companies purchasing products can indeed put pressure on both to improve the working conditions of miners but in the end as with nearly every human tragedy, it comes down to the government to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. nothing changes until the local government has to change it.
Ok but they definitely should put pressure on the government by not buying their unethical produce.
Ban all trade with countries that use child labor and forced labor, simple as that.
Then the law needs to change. It's unconscionable for this to be happening. You make the buyers of that cobalt start caring, you'll make the producers of that cobalt start caring.
I don't think this makes much sense. The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track. Even when you stop buying directly from the DRC, the minerals flow over the borders (see how Rwandan coltan exports jumped when people stopped buying DRC 'conflict' coltan). That part of the DRC is basically beyond the reach of the Congolese government and the bordering countries have been waging pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'someone will do it anyway' defense is not morally legitimate. Just because everyone else is doing it, does not make the action ok. Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."
I'm not interested in sounding morally superior, I'm interested in actually helping people who need help. And if you want to do that, you need to accept that 'stop buying cobalt' is not currently a solution that has any chance of improving the state of things.
Ideally, it is a dual solution of don't buy the unethical kind, and set up an alternate ethical supply chain to the same region so workers can switch to a better work place.
But, if the latter is not possible, one can at least help decrease the market for unethical cobalt by ceasing purchase.
Plus, it is not a matter of seeming morally superior. If one option is morally better than another, it should be chosen, regardless of the consequences.
So, for instance, if Jesus is correct, that it is immoral to be a path of scandal, then one should choose to not be a path of scandal, even if the state of the world otherwise remains unchanged (e.g. unethical cobalt mining continues).
Then the law needs to change. It's unconscionable for this to be happening. You make the buyers of that cobalt start caring, you'll make the producers of that cobalt start caring.
I don't think this makes much sense. The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track. Even when you stop buying directly from the DRC, the minerals flow over the borders (see how Rwandan coltan exports jumped when people stopped buying DRC 'conflict' coltan). That part of the DRC is basically beyond the reach of the Congolese government and the bordering countries have been waging pro…
Commodities, in general. They're fungible, so cobalt from one supplier looks like cobalt from another supplier.