Apple held talks with DuckDuckGo to replace Alphabet's Google as the default search engine for the private mode on Apple's Safari browser, the Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the discussions.
Fairphone had audits that prove it’s an improvement in both sustainability and worker conditions.
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
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.
I don’t even particularly like them I just think they’re an example of harm reduction.
You are saying they do exactly the same damage and that is just not true. No they are not morally ethical but they do do less harm and that’s just a fact.
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.
I don’t even particularly like them I just think they’re an example of harm reduction.
You are saying they do exactly the same damage and that is just not true. No they are not morally ethical but they do do less harm and that’s just a fact.