This is ironic considering Vice routinely bends the truth in favor of outrage porn themselves. In this case, the author doesn't appear to know exactly how much

This is ironic considering Vice routinely bends the truth in favor of outrage porn themselves. In this case, the author doesn't appear to know exactly how much of the waste in the 90 million pounds figure was actually Apple products, though based on the rough calculation that CRT monitors make up the vast majority of e-waste weight he estimates that it is very little. That appears to be the meat of the controversy here. It's not that no e-waste recycling occurred, it's that the $40 million in gold figure is dubious-at-best. Apple paid the companies to perform electronics recycling, which the article itself says is a non-lucrative business and in large part exists solely because manufacturers pay for these recycling programs. I'm not sure if there's a real issue here(other than perhaps the media taking something and running with it for clicks).