3 ms·

I think your argument equates to "Everyone else is doing it mom, why can't I?". It was as much bullshit when you were a kid as it is now.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Well, not really. http://xkcd.com/1170/ http://xkcd.com/1170/
- hawleyal 12y ago
  Is this reddit?
dalke 12y ago
My argument is as to how angry I should be specifically towards Apple, vs. towards the industry as a whole, the BBC, and us as people, and to inform my decisions on how to improve international working conditions. (Admittedly, that's low on my list.) If Apple's claim is correct, and "no other company [does] as much as Apple does to ensure fair and safe working conditions, to discover and investigate problems, to fix and follow through when issues arise, and to provide transparency into the operations of our suppliers," then the solution is to push for a change to the laws. If Apple's claim is completely inverted, and everyone else requires a maximum 40 hour work week with a livable wage, with 100% compliance, then it's time I boycott Apple. On the third hand, if no one else can report any numbers like this, then attacking Apple for being the first to be transparent about these numbers means that other companies are less likely to publish, or even track, these numbers, because the tall poppies are cut down first. If so, then the BBC is making things worse by attacking Apple for being the only one to be so honest. (This is the one I happen to believe, but have little evidence for.) On the fourth hand, if Apple is the middle of the pack, then certainly it could be an "Everyone else is doing it" arguments. Except that Apple highlights how they don't think they are in the middle of the pack, and stress why they think that, for example, working with the Indonesian tin mining industry is overall better than not sourcing Indonesian tin. Of the alternatives, I don't see why you thought I was suggesting the one least supported by the evidence.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Well, not really. http://xkcd.com/1170/ http://xkcd.com/1170/

hawleyal 12y ago
Is this reddit?

dalke 12y ago

My argument is as to how angry I should be specifically towards Apple, vs. towards the industry as a whole, the BBC, and us as people, and to inform my decisions on how to improve international working conditions. (Admittedly, that's low on my list.) If Apple's claim is correct, and "no other company [does] as much as Apple does to ensure fair and safe working conditions, to discover and investigate problems, to fix and follow through when issues arise, and to provide transparency into the operations of our suppliers," then the solution is to push for a change to the laws. If Apple's claim is completely inverted, and everyone else requires a maximum 40 hour work week with a livable wage, with 100% compliance, then it's time I boycott Apple. On the third hand, if no one else can report any numbers like this, then attacking Apple for being the first to be transparent about these numbers means that other companies are less likely to publish, or even track, these numbers, because the tall poppies are cut down first. If so, then the BBC is making things worse by attacking Apple for being the only one to be so honest. (This is the one I happen to believe, but have little evidence for.) On the fourth hand, if Apple is the middle of the pack, then certainly it could be an "Everyone else is doing it" arguments. Except that Apple highlights how they don't think they are in the middle of the pack, and stress why they think that, for example, working with the Indonesian tin mining industry is overall better than not sourcing Indonesian tin. Of the alternatives, I don't see why you thought I was suggesting the one least supported by the evidence.