this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
384 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
339 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it wonderful playing a rigged game?
Here is a phone that ticks many, many boxes for sustainable and ethical production. It's the phone that "free market will fix it" neoliberals insist should bring the downfall of companies that just release e-waste.
But of course the free market won't fix anything.
Neoliberals built a managed democracy and giant corporations were allowed to use outsourcing, slaves and environment-unfriendly manufacturing.
The influx of cheap goods subsidised by the misery of foreign workers and future generations made it harder to notice our shrinking wages. We could still afford to fill our homes with tat, just like our parents did.
But your grandfathers tools lasted 30 years and yours will last 3 (and be worse for the duration). Very few companies even bother offering good products, let alone ethical ones.
Because nobody can actually afford "good" any more. Not the consumers who want to buy it, nor the handful of companies trying to sell it. You have to buy crap. Companies have to be unethical.
It's dug us a very very deep hole that's going to be a lot of hard work to climb out of and it's looking like politicians and billionaires are only interested in selling us new shovels.
Millions of people could afford this phone, they just don't care about ethics.
Instead the Samsung S's, Folds and iPhones sell by the tens of millions because they are trendy and give more "bang for the buck".
And millionaires could afford to pay their workers fair wages, but apparently you'd rather blame the general public instead.
It's not at all unreasonable for people to assume the goods they buy are ethically produced.
If someone gets food poisoning from a restaurant, do you blame them for eating there? Do you try and shame them for not reading through 800 reviews to check it was safe to eat there? Do you insist they should have gone somewhere that was twice the price for half the portion?
Of course you don't. But apparently this deeply flawed logic is only used when it comes to corporate greed and only because rich people don't run restaurants.
All those are fair points. There's not much freedom of choice because common people are struggling to live as it is, to splurge on something with a bad camera and battery life makes no sense (I believe those are some main points people upgrade their phones).
I'm running a 4 year old phone and probably will be going on 5th year because of economical strain.
In your analogy, it also doesn't help that there's only one ethical restaurant among hundreds of unethical ones. It's expensive because nobody goes there and nobody goes there because it's expensive.
I understand why people would hesitate to pay the price. Realistically, the Fairphone could have put in higher quality parts but that would have just blown their costs out further.
But exploitative wages -- for both foreign and domestic workers -- are at the core of many problems and I hate to see customers blamed.
The one in a hundred restaurant might be full of empty tables, but where would people eat if you doubled their wages? If there were two chocolate bars with identical taste, being offered at an identical price, except one of them used child slaves (and said so on the packaging), how many people "wouldn't care" then?
Ethical choices shouldn't be a luxury, unethical choices just shouldn't be an option. If that means people can't afford chocolate, they can take it up with the executives who have been pocketing their payrises.