5 ms·

It changes by holding companies like Apple accountable. They are the largest company in the world for goodness sake. Their audits when so little as a picture of

It changes by holding companies like Apple accountable. They are the largest company in the world for goodness sake. Their audits when so little as a picture of a manual gets leaked are incredibly thorough, yet when it comes to literal slavery they're unable to reign it in? If we were to hold executives liable for acting as slavers then it would be miraculous how quickly corporate leadership would suddenly be interested in the well being of their fellow man.

duxup 6y ago
I think there's always some manufacturer willing to do this thing with any product, even with Apple and just continue on. We talk about slavery, that ended with state actions. I'm not sure China cares, and accordingly the practice will continue.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  We have to pull manufacturing out of China until something changes, then. Each and every one of us is indirectly contributing to slavery until then.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > We talk about slavery, that ended with state actions. I'm not sure China cares, and accordingly the practice will continue. You're correct, but there's another angle to this than ending the practice: moral complicity. An individual in the antebellum south couldn't reasonably end the institution of slavery in the US, but he could have taken actions that affected the degree he was personally complicit. If he owned and profited from slavery, he was clearly complicit. If he did but had a change of heart and manumitted them, he's far less so. If he became an abolitionist and did his best to avoid supporting slaveholders or the products of slavery, he's hardly complicit at all. If Apple chooses to deal with companies that use forced labor (or chooses to look the other way), it's complicit, and that means it's customers are too (to a lesser degree).
  - judge2020 6y ago
    The issue is arising from China potentially forcing Uighur people to find jobs 'on their own' lest they be held indefinitely in concentration camps. You can't audit that. You ask every worker and see if they say 'yes' or 'no' to the question "are you working here of your own free will" and see which ones say no with this threat looming over them.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      But even if that's true, there's no law of nature that compels Apple to buy from suppliers located in China or locate its operations there. It could cut ties and pull out (and Apple's one of the few companies with the resources to build up new supply chains elsewhere), or it could direct its suppliers to setup new factories outside of China to supply its needs in an easily auditable way. It may even be easier than that. As far as I can tell, this "Lens Technology" company makes phone cover glass, and Apple already deals with Corning to make other glass components, and I'm sure they'd like the business. It looks like none of their Gorilla Glass factories are inside China.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  Right, I'm not disputing that there will always be someone horrible willing to do that. What I'm saying is that large American companies and their executives should be held legally responsible if that gets into their supply chain. If a Sword of Damocles is hovering continuously above their head in the form of criminal punishment then they would have no choice but to think twice about off shoring to a region where it is "conveniently" difficult to enforce basic labor rights. My point is that purposeful ignorance as a defense is unacceptable.

duxup 6y ago

I think there's always some manufacturer willing to do this thing with any product, even with Apple and just continue on. We talk about slavery, that ended with state actions. I'm not sure China cares, and accordingly the practice will continue.

throwaway3699 6y ago
We have to pull manufacturing out of China until something changes, then. Each and every one of us is indirectly contributing to slavery until then.
ardy42 6y ago
> We talk about slavery, that ended with state actions. I'm not sure China cares, and accordingly the practice will continue. You're correct, but there's another angle to this than ending the practice: moral complicity. An individual in the antebellum south couldn't reasonably end the institution of slavery in the US, but he could have taken actions that affected the degree he was personally complicit. If he owned and profited from slavery, he was clearly complicit. If he did but had a change of heart and manumitted them, he's far less so. If he became an abolitionist and did his best to avoid supporting slaveholders or the products of slavery, he's hardly complicit at all. If Apple chooses to deal with companies that use forced labor (or chooses to look the other way), it's complicit, and that means it's customers are too (to a lesser degree).
- judge2020 6y ago
  The issue is arising from China potentially forcing Uighur people to find jobs 'on their own' lest they be held indefinitely in concentration camps. You can't audit that. You ask every worker and see if they say 'yes' or 'no' to the question "are you working here of your own free will" and see which ones say no with this threat looming over them.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    But even if that's true, there's no law of nature that compels Apple to buy from suppliers located in China or locate its operations there. It could cut ties and pull out (and Apple's one of the few companies with the resources to build up new supply chains elsewhere), or it could direct its suppliers to setup new factories outside of China to supply its needs in an easily auditable way. It may even be easier than that. As far as I can tell, this "Lens Technology" company makes phone cover glass, and Apple already deals with Corning to make other glass components, and I'm sure they'd like the business. It looks like none of their Gorilla Glass factories are inside China.
onepointsixC 6y ago
Right, I'm not disputing that there will always be someone horrible willing to do that. What I'm saying is that large American companies and their executives should be held legally responsible if that gets into their supply chain. If a Sword of Damocles is hovering continuously above their head in the form of criminal punishment then they would have no choice but to think twice about off shoring to a region where it is "conveniently" difficult to enforce basic labor rights. My point is that purposeful ignorance as a defense is unacceptable.