The article is much better than the headline, and details how companies are trying to make the devices less of an ecological problem. But the framing in the headline just made me think of this.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
435 points (100.0% liked)
196
18702 readers
256 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not when people keep giving them money. You can make the decision to boycott a company or industry that you disagree with.
Of course there are people who don't have the means to make these choices, but for those who do (including many here on Lemmy), it's important to recognize the impact that your decisions make. Far too often I see the corporate contribution used as an excuse to continue supporting these corporations by people who do have the ability to boycott them. It's an appeal to futility at best, and actively funding the problem at worst.
I'm certainly not defending corporations against social justice, and I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why can't we support progressive legislation, tax reform, unions, social pressure and local economies while also refusing to financially support the companies and industries we oppose?
At no point was I against group action. I was responding to your assertion that individual responsibility was a silly way to look at it, when it's an important piece of the overall solution - the responsibility to hold companies financially accountable. I'm not saying recycle your needlessly purchased plastic junk or unplug your phone charger. I'm saying don't give money to companies and industries that are destroying the earth and causing massive amounts of human and animal suffering. Now that that's cleared up, I think we may actually be in agreement?
All good. Glad we got it cleared up!