Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#211

Post by briandear » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #178

solidasparagus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't disagree, but if we want to actually help, we need to work with the world the way it is ...said the people opposing abolitionism. Reality: to achieve moral progress, sometimes you need to eat an economic recession. Suck it up, buttercup.

When it’s your job, your family starving or out of work or homeless, then “suck it up buttercup” doesn’t sound so nice. The reality is the extreme poverty is lower than it has ever been, thanks to trade. Think it’s bad now? Try 50 years ago. The world is getting better despite the propaganda to the contrary. That we are even talking about this at all shows progress.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#212

Post by dvdhnt » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

frockington1 wrote: post #188

Gibbon1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um... Only software developers.

And human resources departments, and finance departments, and investors, and people with 401ks, and people who depend on taxes, and anyone who sells goods etc... They produce a lot of value to the US economy

> and people who depend on taxes

What is that supposed to mean?

We all depend on taxes. Have you heard of public infrastructure? NASA? DoJ?

It's super disingenuous to pretend that the average employee is somehow getting massive value from giant tech companies. Someone would need to be very (probably intentionally) oblivious to believe that.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#213

Post by afandian » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

papreclip wrote: post #169

qaq wrote: post #16

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.

People really seem to be sharpening the axe for our big tech companies these days. Personally I find it disturbing. These companies are a river of prosperity for our people, especially software developers

This sounds like an argument I hear about the nuclear deterrent in the UK. "This brings jobs to the area". There are plenty of serious discussions about the existential threat posed / mitigated / whatever by nuclear weapons without mixing in the incidentals like this. Of course it wins votes.

Big companies a century ago made a lot of cash out of exploiting slave labour overseas. And, I'm sure, plenty of people thought they couldn't live without whatever commodity they were getting for cheap on the back of foreign lives.

This hasn't stopped. We need to keep the dialogue open. The axes should be just as sharp for the new colonial powers.

Maybe it seems like there's a never-ending stream of history to be on the wrong side of, but that can't be an impediment to action.

(Apologies if the parent comment was satyrical)

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#214

Post by bluGill » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #30

bluGill wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most capitalists fear public relations and won't use child or slave labor anywhere in their supply chain if they can help it. When the customer might boycott you for something you stand to lose far more than gain by doing it anyway.

This assumes perfect information for the consumer. Most capitalist wouldn't advertise they use child labor even if they did. Sweep it under the rug, and focus on the marketing budget instead. Then many consumers are apathetic to a lot of things, they may not care enough that some children they never knew died. Relying on the invisible hand to affect social change often results in invisible results, because the result…

In the case of child/slave labor the topic is sensitive enough that it isn't worth sweeping under the rug because the risk is too great. If you do "sweep it under the rug" a large part of your efforts is ensuring the children working for you have a better life than those not (education and medical care) which costs a lot of money. That is you assume you will be caught and try to present yourself in the best light anyway.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#215

Post by forgotmyhnacc » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

dvdhnt wrote: post #212

frockington1 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And human resources departments, and finance departments, and investors, and people with 401ks, and people who depend on taxes, and anyone who sells goods etc... They produce a lot of value to the US economy

> and people who depend on taxes What is that supposed to mean? We all depend on taxes. Have you heard of public infrastructure? NASA? DoJ? It's super disingenuous to pretend that the average employee is somehow getting massive value from giant tech companies. Someone would need to be very (probably intentionally) oblivious to believe that.

OP meant people employed by local city and state governments, that the tech company resides in probably.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#216

Post by solidasparagus » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #206

solidasparagus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of the mineral trade AFAIK. Not entirely true. There are tools like SiliconExpert which track "conflict mineral issues" in the supply chain. This tool or others like it are used by the tech giants to screen their supply chain for this as well as other more mundane problems. It's a standard part of compliance engineering ( https://www.silicon…

I know Apple invested heavily into tracking their mineral supply chain, but I believe their final conclusion was that it is essentially impossible.

> "the lengthy nature of its supply chain – as well as the nature of the refining process – makes it “difficult to track and trace these materials”. Apple illustrates this challenge by noting that its supply chain runs through “family-run mines, brokers, smelters, refiners, and commodity exchanges – before reaching a component or subcomponent manufacturer”"[1]

From Apple's 2018 conflict minerals report - "Apple has not, to date, been able to determine whether the reported incidents were connected to specific 3TG included in Apple’s products. The challenges with tracking specific mineral quantities through the supply chain continue to prevent the traceability of any specific mineral shipment through the entire manufacturing process."[2]

[1] https://hrbdf.org/case_studies/conflict-minerals/conflict_mi...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001193125190...

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#217

Post by solidasparagus » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

shantly wrote: post #204

solidasparagus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a new idea, even in the DRC and it has been an abject failure. Conflict gold, diamonds and coltan still flow out of DRC despite efforts to not buy undocumented minerals. In highly corrupt and impoverished places, documentation doesn't mean anything. One bribe of a few hundred dollars and your Congolese conflict mineral is now clean, documented Rwandan mineral.

Efforts , but have companies been made to pay a cost for failing to source "ethically", even when they say "well gee we tried and it's just really hard"? Things tend to get more serious when money is on the line, rather than just PR. Doing it right would clearly take verification, not just documentation, which means requiring access for outside inspectors.

You can't prove that a certain mineral came from an unethical production location - that's the core problem I believe. How would you punish a company for using conflict minerals if no one can figure out if given minerals are conflict minerals?

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#218

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

solidasparagus wrote: post #195

dv_dt wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electronics manufacturers already have all sorts of tracking regulatory infrastructure and certifications for parts going into their BOM. Everything from other conflict materials, to limits on uses for component export/import limits because of trade sanctions, to conventional regulations on uses of materials like lead in solder, to some suppliers who won't supply to military or nuclear uses. The framework is there al…

But efforts to prevent conflict materials from being sold have failed in the past. There's been a focus on coltan before cobalt and it sure seems like the minerals have moved from the DRC to Rwanda (see how Rwanda became the world's leading exporter of coltan after people stopped buying conflict coltan from DRC). Similarly, efforts to stop conflict diamonds and conflict gold have not found much success.

I'd agree the efforts have not cut off that kind of business 100% but they've been effective in reducing the amount of conflict business, as well as reducing their profitability making them do more work to put the items on the market.

Conflict diamonds and gold are a different market framework than electronics components though - those items in particular have much different and arguably more varied sales avenues that make them more difficult to stop. Electronics components have an inherent complex testing quality and fewer channels for markets to move through so should be easier to control on a regulatory basis.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#219

Post by Nasrudith » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

WilliamEdward wrote: post #45

egdod wrote: post #41

> The lawsuit accuses those companies of "knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children." It has not been tested in court. Might as well sue the end users too, if that's a viable theory.

sue millions of consumers or one company... seems like a hard choice.

Or sue nobody because of a lack of actual grounds for a lawsuit.

Re: Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt

#220

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #160

solidasparagus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The mineral supply chain in that part of the world is ridiculously hard to track Commodities, in general. They're fungible, so cobalt from one supplier looks like cobalt from another supplier.

Commodities are more trackable with detailed analysis then anyone might casually think. e.g. oil is a commodity but the signature of oil from certain regions is pretty visible by chemists, and one can force oil supply from trade restricted sources to at least try to mask the signature by mixing with other sources. Not perfect but you can raise the difficulty bar on commodity sourcing.