3 ms·
This is a dumb argument because Apple doesn't even defend the child labor used by their suppliers, let alone on the grounds that they're actually saving childre
by skedaddle 6y ago
This is a dumb argument because Apple doesn't even defend the child labor used by their suppliers, let alone on the grounds that they're actually saving children from exploitation.
- oh_sigh 6y agoApple's incentives and the incentives of the child laborers are surely different. In this instance you have children who want to work, but aren't legally allowed.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> In this instance you have children who want to work We don't know that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- skedaddle 6y agoYou can rationalize the sex trade too by saying without being able to sell sex the 14/15 year old would have to sell an organ, or starve. What do you think a 9 year old working as a human mule for $0.75/day at a cobalt mine in the Congo? There are labor conditions below which you cannot (humanly) talk about the "incentives" of the worker. But look, we are 50 years into the problem with consumer electronics at this point. It is complex and will be very hard to unwind, but I think at a minimum you should be forced to label products made with exploited labor. Apple is one of the only companies to even attempt to improve these conditions. It's a huge disservice to go back to trying to justify them instead.