6 ms·

> 'infrastructure is a little hit and miss' Lol. The problem isn't a lack of roads, it's the fact that parts of eastern DRC are still effectively war zones. Th

> 'infrastructure is a little hit and miss' Lol. The problem isn't a lack of roads, it's the fact that parts of eastern DRC are still effectively war zones. This isn't tech companies not caring, this is an ongoing war, a government incapable of controlling the country (and hardly the good guys even where they do have control), rebel groups (which have control over minerals and need income) running their own proto-states, long-standing tribal conflicts, militarily powerful neighbors with vested interests in keeping the conflict going and DRC's precious resources flowing over the borders, a widespread Ebola outbreak, and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homes. Google 'wanting to know' isn't going to solve the chaos in that part of the world that leads to the supply chain tracking problems.

FussyZeus 7y ago
They know enough to get the damn cobalt. They can know more if they want to, or, more likely, not do business with the sort of shady ass organizations who use child labor specifically because they can't get the documentation. I really don't understand this "that's just the way it is" thinking when it comes to corporations doing shady shit overseas. If I went to my DMV and I said "I need to register this car" and had no proof of purchase, no previous registration, no paperwork from the former owner or dealer, I wouldn't be able to register this car. Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? Are you kidding me?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  What good do you think a receipt is in that part of the world? Of course they get a certificate of conflict-free production. And if you have a couple bucks in the DRC/Rwanda, you can get one too! Look at diamonds, gold and coltan as useful precedents that show how buyer-side pressure will not improve things unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether. BINGO. That's what you do. If the ass end of Mogadishu can't provide the minerals without using exploitative labor practices, THEN DON'T BUY FROM THE ASS END OF MOGADISHU. And if that means an iPhone costs $200 more then that's what it fucking means, because no iPhone is worth it's weight in human suffering to have.
    - solidasparagus 7y ago
      This is one of those feel-good solutions that lets us feel superior but doesn't actually help the people suffering. Demand is not going anywhere. You're also insultingly wrong with your geography.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        > 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 their entire region, and possibly financing even more in other regions. The West does not need to go in and "fix" every developing nation, but at the same time, saying "well if we didn't sell them scrapheap ships or buy the minerals their children mine, they'd starve" is a complete abdication of responsibility for the role the demand for those minerals plays in their situation. They mine them because they can sell them, that's the whole point. If you remove the entities buying them, then there's no reason to mine them.
        solidasparagus 7y ago
        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.
- naravara 7y ago
  >They can know more if they want to Sure they could. They would basically need to set up a modern version of the East India Trading Company, build themselves a mercenary army, and go in there and set up a proxy government that adheres to whatever regulatory policies they want to define. We called that "colonialism" the last time around though, and most of the countries it happened to were not fans.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    False dichotomy. Or Strawman. Both apply.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      I don't think that it is. If you look at what the PRC is doing to establish footholds and reliable supply chains, it bears a strong resemblance to those old trading companies. The US does various "counter-terrorism" operations in different countries, essentially borrowing African military units.
  - yters 7y ago
    The problem with colonialism is exploitation of the people, not the setting up of a just government. I'm in favor of Western countries coming in and setting up a just government, even if there is a profit motive involved. It at least is much better than a constant war torn and corrupt environment.
    - monknomo 7y ago
      Where would the justice derive from in a government that was set up for the purposes of extracting resources in one area and transferring the resulting resources and wealth to a different area?
      - yters 7y ago
        Justice as in peace is brought to the local population and they are kept from murdering and stealing from each other. Whether they get to keep their local resources or not I think is a secondary concern to whether they have a peaceful society.
- MS90 7y ago
  Not disagreeing with you, but I would be surprised if they're buying it directly from the mine and not from some sort of market/middleman/third party company. I wouldn't hold my breath for extensive receipts and documentation either. The miners pictured in the article don't even have shoes and the "hammers" they're given appear to be two pieces of rebar welded together. I'd be surprised to find much documentation at all.
  - thinkmassive 7y ago
    FTA... Q: But I'm asking you, is it possible that these companies can claim that you can't prove that they're actually linked to the cobalt? A: Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      So no real connection at all, then. Nice of them to admit it. Why are they suing these unrelated tech companies, then, and not the ones that actually sent the kids to work in the mines—i.e. themselves?
- neuroticfish 7y ago
  >Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? What normally happens in this process is that the selling country's government official who is tasked with verifying the integrity of the receipt is bribed with a month or more salary to sign the exchange off as legitimate, e.g. the Kimberley Process. There has got to be a solution to this problem but paper trails are notoriously unreliable in scenarios like this one.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Wasn't bribery illegal?
    - bluGill 7y ago
      So? Who is going to know or enforce it? Most bribes are not obvious. More like give money to the charity my brother in law runs. The charity even does some good, but the real purpose is to pay the brother in law a nice salary and pay for family trips to various places the charity operates. (You should be suspicious anytime the family of a politician has any association with a charity - it might be a real charity but often it is a way to hide bribes)
      - alasdair_ 7y ago
        "Speaking assignments" where you pay someone $8 Million to read a prepared speech for an hour is another common way to bribe people.

FussyZeus 7y ago

They know enough to get the damn cobalt. They can know more if they want to, or, more likely, not do business with the sort of shady ass organizations who use child labor specifically because they can't get the documentation. I really don't understand this "that's just the way it is" thinking when it comes to corporations doing shady shit overseas. If I went to my DMV and I said "I need to register this car" and had no proof of purchase, no previous registration, no paperwork from the former owner or dealer, I wouldn't be able to register this car. Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? Are you kidding me?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
solidasparagus 7y ago
What good do you think a receipt is in that part of the world? Of course they get a certificate of conflict-free production. And if you have a couple bucks in the DRC/Rwanda, you can get one too! Look at diamonds, gold and coltan as useful precedents that show how buyer-side pressure will not improve things unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > unless the buyers choose to stop using the minerals altogether. BINGO. That's what you do. If the ass end of Mogadishu can't provide the minerals without using exploitative labor practices, THEN DON'T BUY FROM THE ASS END OF MOGADISHU. And if that means an iPhone costs $200 more then that's what it fucking means, because no iPhone is worth it's weight in human suffering to have.
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    This is one of those feel-good solutions that lets us feel superior but doesn't actually help the people suffering. Demand is not going anywhere. You're also insultingly wrong with your geography.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      > 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 their entire region, and possibly financing even more in other regions. The West does not need to go in and "fix" every developing nation, but at the same time, saying "well if we didn't sell them scrapheap ships or buy the minerals their children mine, they'd starve" is a complete abdication of responsibility for the role the demand for those minerals plays in their situation. They mine them because they can sell them, that's the whole point. If you remove the entities buying them, then there's no reason to mine them.
      - solidasparagus 7y ago
        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.
naravara 7y ago
>They can know more if they want to Sure they could. They would basically need to set up a modern version of the East India Trading Company, build themselves a mercenary army, and go in there and set up a proxy government that adheres to whatever regulatory policies they want to define. We called that "colonialism" the last time around though, and most of the countries it happened to were not fans.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  False dichotomy. Or Strawman. Both apply.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    I don't think that it is. If you look at what the PRC is doing to establish footholds and reliable supply chains, it bears a strong resemblance to those old trading companies. The US does various "counter-terrorism" operations in different countries, essentially borrowing African military units.
- yters 7y ago
  The problem with colonialism is exploitation of the people, not the setting up of a just government. I'm in favor of Western countries coming in and setting up a just government, even if there is a profit motive involved. It at least is much better than a constant war torn and corrupt environment.
  - monknomo 7y ago
    Where would the justice derive from in a government that was set up for the purposes of extracting resources in one area and transferring the resulting resources and wealth to a different area?
    - yters 7y ago
      Justice as in peace is brought to the local population and they are kept from murdering and stealing from each other. Whether they get to keep their local resources or not I think is a secondary concern to whether they have a peaceful society.
MS90 7y ago
Not disagreeing with you, but I would be surprised if they're buying it directly from the mine and not from some sort of market/middleman/third party company. I wouldn't hold my breath for extensive receipts and documentation either. The miners pictured in the article don't even have shoes and the "hammers" they're given appear to be two pieces of rebar welded together. I'd be surprised to find much documentation at all.
- thinkmassive 7y ago
  FTA... Q: But I'm asking you, is it possible that these companies can claim that you can't prove that they're actually linked to the cobalt? A: Certainly the supply chain is opaque. It is complex. But the plaintiffs all were injured and killed at mines owned by companies that have been publicly disclosed as sellers of cobalt to our defendants.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    So no real connection at all, then. Nice of them to admit it. Why are they suing these unrelated tech companies, then, and not the ones that actually sent the kids to work in the mines—i.e. themselves?
neuroticfish 7y ago
>Yet, somehow, a multiBILLION dollar company can just buy material from warlords or whatever tribe in remote parts of China, and ship MILLIONS OF POUNDS of it out of that region, but nobody can get a fucking receipt? What normally happens in this process is that the selling country's government official who is tasked with verifying the integrity of the receipt is bribed with a month or more salary to sign the exchange off as legitimate, e.g. the Kimberley Process. There has got to be a solution to this problem but paper trails are notoriously unreliable in scenarios like this one.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Wasn't bribery illegal?
  - bluGill 7y ago
    So? Who is going to know or enforce it? Most bribes are not obvious. More like give money to the charity my brother in law runs. The charity even does some good, but the real purpose is to pay the brother in law a nice salary and pay for family trips to various places the charity operates. (You should be suspicious anytime the family of a politician has any association with a charity - it might be a real charity but often it is a way to hide bribes)
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      "Speaking assignments" where you pay someone $8 Million to read a prepared speech for an hour is another common way to bribe people.