
Tech giants sued over deaths of children who mine cobalt - asaibx
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.5399491/tech-giants-sued-over-appalling-deaths-of-children-who-mine-their-cobalt-1.5399492
======
fennecfoxen
Regarding the legal merits of the case, I notice that don't see any coverage
of a proposed theory of liability in the article. The lawsuit text is more
informative, pointing at a bunch of sections of US Code about forced labor,
trafficking, and sale into voluntary servitude — for instance, 18 U.S. Code §
1589 which notes, "(b) Whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving
anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in the
providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of the means described in
subsection (a), knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the venture
has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of such
means, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d)."

But I'm not at all certain the court is willing consider the purchase of goods
on the world market to be equivalent to "participation" in this venture, even
if the suit asserts that "The Cobalt Supply Chain Is a “Venture”". Is there
meaningful precedent for interpreting a supply chain in this way?

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Just for the sake of completeness, "knowingly" is a specific legalese term. It
means you _know_ the goods are coming from the prohibited source, but still
decide to buy it.

The total spectrum looks like this:

\- purposefully: you won't buy cobalt, unless it says "mined by slave
children" on the tin

\- knowingly: you buy cobalt even if it says "mined by slave children" on the
tin

\- recklessly: you know that 90% of world cobalt is mined by slave children.
You hope that yours comes from the remaining 10%

\- negligently: you know that 10% of world cobalt is mined by slave children,
so you decided to take a chance and bought yours without checking

~~~
nooyurrsdey
Not sure I understand the difference between recklessly and negligently? Don't
both amount to you not knowing and not wanting to find out?

~~~
zaarn
Negligent means you didn't know and didn't want to, reckless meant you didn't
know but accepted the possibility that it could happen or the possibility was
extremely high.

------
Robotbeat
I found this is very insightful thread on this lawsuit and context behind it:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1206896495993...](https://mobile.twitter.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1206896495993278464)

0) lawyers suing have questionable history

BUT 1) Child labor in Africa is a serious problem that needs to be addressed,
and just about anything sourced from Africa will have this problem.

2) The Kamoto mine in question is a copper mine. Cobalt is a secondary
product. (One could just about as legitimately call attention to products
using copper.)

3) Tesla is targeted in the lawsuit but does not use Congolese cobalt.

4) Possible exception to this is some possible future Tesla cells could come
from LGChem which gets some of its lithium from Umicore. However, LGChem is
the primary supplier of cells for GM and several other EV producers... Yet
they are not named in this lawsuit.

5) Kamoto is a modern industrial mine. Artisanal mines are where child labor
is used. Unskilled child labor is of dubious use in highly mechanized
industrial mining sites.

6) However, Kamoto _has_ had problems with pirate artisanal mines on its
property and has tried to get the Congolese army to help keep them out. (So I
guess the lawsuit would be that Kamoto has not been able to keep out illegal
artisanal mines from its property?)

7) Regardless of all these points, we NEED to stop this dangerous child labor
in Africa, and it's probably a good thing that this sort of thing is drawing
attention to the issue.

(Note, I'm mentioning Tesla here because I'm most familiar with it and it's
also mentioned most in the thread, but it's possible similar arguments apply
to other companies listed: It seems they're listed because they're well-known,
large tech companies, not necessarily due to amount of cobalt use or even use
of unethical cobalt at all.)

~~~
dmix
The fact they'd even need to have to try to get the Congolese army to enforce
what happens on their own mine property says a lot about the problem.

It's largely just a security problem. But I'm sure the activists don't want
violent military guys pushing off the pirate mines.

The other question is the pipelines that purchase from the 'artisanal' mines.
Those people could be targeted and better regulated.

But as we've seen in the diamond and gold industries that's been a very hard
thing to do in African countries without stable governments or strong
incentives to stop them.

If the goal is to actually stop it and not some vindictive pursuit of western
companies who people want to take all of the blame, then upping security and
oversight of the mines with financial goals and on-sight oversight teams to
measure progress. Plus some financial incentives to the various players to
reports the dangerous supply lines which are using kids, so it's not putting a
poor person between having something and total poverty out for some moral
purpose which they will disregard.

~~~
Robotbeat
I think stable government and general development (education, economic) is
really the ultimate solution to this and everything else will either be
largely ineffective or have significant downsides.

There needs to be some international/African Union pressure to stop some of
the proxy warfare going on in central Africa and some way to ensure stability
in Congo.

------
swebs
>Perhaps the only tragedy greater than the criminal destruction of the
environment and the lives of the people of the Congo by these companies is the
fact that it would be a rounding error on their income statements to fix the
problem.

Eh, I don't think giving more money to the third world mining companies is
going to guarantee they're going to stop using child labor. The simplest and
least risky decision for the tech companies is to simply stop buying Congolese
cobalt. It's "blood diamonds" all over again.

~~~
Shivetya
the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo. the
companies purchasing products can indeed put pressure on both to improve the
working conditions of miners but in the end as with nearly every human
tragedy, it comes down to the government to take responsibility for its
actions and inaction. nothing changes until the local government has to change
it.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
You literally want to place the blame solely on a third world country for the
deaths and disease of all these child laborers when it's our first world
addiction to their resources driving the injustice in the first place? Who is
in a better economic standing to improve this situation?

Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted
immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was
supplied?

I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo
is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like
we're making the world better. It's pathetic.

~~~
zaroth
[Edited]

------
qaq
I like how people get outraged at US tech giants but gracefully ignore the
fact that Glencore which actually is the beneficiary of exploiting the
children is based in Europe. It's no small target either with annual revenue
of 219.8 billion in 2018 vs Google's 136.

~~~
bjornjaja
Im sure the lawyers thought of that angle, but the mining company currently
doesn’t do anything to effect change so they probably won’t unless their
customers (tech companies) demand a change.

It really is unfortunate. The mining company should build out proper
infrastructure but I’m guessing they just delegate to (corrupt) locals.

This is no different than all the global environmental issues we’re facing
with large scale production facilities (bottled water, petroleum, etc. are a
huge problem too). The indigenous populations are getting fucked over because
they live in remote areas prime for exploitation. Then the factories close
down and don’t clean anything up.

I should point out this is also happening in developed countries like Canada
and the USA. For instance, what is the difference between children mining
cobalt and children being exposed to mercury poisoning because their rivers
upstream there’s a paper plant dumping toxic waste into the food supply in
Ontario, or petrol industry in Texas poisoning neighboring schools with
chemical fumes.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
But I mean, you see what’s wrong here right? The lawyers thought about it from
the angle of _who’s actually responsible_ , but realized that suing that
company probably wouldn’t accomplish much lasting change. So they made up
reasons to also sue popular tech companies, in hopes that embarrassing them
will help serve the lawyers’ goals. That’s not how the process is supposed to
work.

~~~
bjornjaja
Absolutely, but when the process itself doesn’t work, then what? Gotta take a
different approach and apply pressure somehow.

------
Robotbeat
Interesting they don't sue diesel producers, consumers, or makers of diesel
vehicles. One of the largest uses of cobalt is desulphurisation of diesel:
[https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/desulphurisation.html](https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/desulphurisation.html)

Also interesting they included Tesla who has consistently used ethically
sourced Cobalt (and others who have campaigned for ethical cobalt have
acknowledged this).

I suspect folks commenting here are right that this is a publicity stunt.

EDIT: One good that could come from this publicity stunt, though, is more
focus on the legitimate problem of child labor in Africa.

------
hnburnsy
This feels like the episode of the The Good Place where they figure out the
point system to get to the good place doesn't work because today's world is
complicated...

>Michael uses the example of someone buying roses. A man hundreds of years ago
got a lot of Good Place points because he grew and picked his own roses to
give to his grandmother. However, when another man got roses for his
grandmother, he lost points. It’s because he ordered them through a cell phone
that was made in a sweatshop, the flowers were grown with toxic pesticides,
delivered from thousands of miles away creating a large carbon footprint and
the money went to a greedy CEO that sexually harassed women.

~~~
dls2016
In other words, there’s no such thing as ethical consumption.

~~~
homonculus1
What is the point of this slogan? Are we all supposed to feel guilty for not
reverting to disconnected hunter-gatherer tribes? It's not an insightful
ethical standard, and I reject it.

~~~
dls2016
Like a sibling of my original comment, human morality is optimized for small
tribes. In my opinion the point of the slogan is to instill some anarchy into
the listener... some weariness of top-heavy hierarchies. In my experience, it
seems that the existence of a top-heavy hierarchy is necessary for, and too
often sufficient to ensure, widespread exploitation. It's relatively easy for
one desperate person to rob their neighbor. But a hierarchy will allow you to
convince normal people to participate in the robbing of everyone two towns
over, or in protecting a powerful studio executive, or dehumanizing detainees,
or...

------
turc1656
Ignoring the overall ethical issue for those employing the child laborers and
looking purely at the lawsuit, it seems to have no merit and appears to be
designed specifically to create a bad PR campaign for these companies and to
draw attention to the issue. I suspect more drawing of attention than the bad
PR, but still probably both are goals.

IANAL, but it seems very obvious from both the article and the lawsuit that
there is no foundation to this. The article acknowledges this is essentially
new ground, but it doesn't even seem to be based on anything legal at all.
Looking at the actual complaint
([http://iradvocates.org/sites/iradvocates.org/files/stamped%2...](http://iradvocates.org/sites/iradvocates.org/files/stamped%20-Complaint.pdf))
it is very telling that in a 79 page suit barely over 2 pages is related to
"jurisdiction and venue". That is a major component of this case, in addition
to the totally untested claims being attempted here in this case. Having
barely over 2 pages sort of tells you right off the bat that they know this is
seriously thin.

Moving to the actual claim, they assert the US court is appropriate based on
18 U.S. Code § 1596. That seems reasonable based on the text. So moving along
to the complaints, they claim violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1581, § 1584, §
1589, and § 1590.

1581 and 1584 very clearly and in no uncertain language apply directly to the
people employing and controlling the labor itself. This is just a bad faith
claim in my opinion and should be tossed out _with_ prejudice.

1589 deals with those who benefit from such activity, which is where we start
to see some semblance of sanity from this lawsuit. However, the language
clearly indicates that it must be a "venture". This usually means direct
agreements, shared ownership, etc. That is not the case in how these tech
companies are acquiring these materials so toss that one out as well, unless
of course you are prepared to accept that the open market and global supply
chain is a venture. Which would then, by logical extension, include anyone and
everyone operating on the entirety of the supply chain and market.

1590 reverts back to the same position as 1581 and 1584, dealing directly with
those who have direct control over said labor. Again, toss this out _with_
prejudice.

The whole lawsuit is crap as far as I'm concerned. Even a basic reading of the
law shows that this suit is trash, regardless of good intentions or not. The
only chance in hell they have is somehow convincing the court that Google,
Apple, Dell, etc. are _all_ working together in a fiendishly evil "venture"
and that they all have direct control over this child labor. Good luck with
that.

Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd throw this entire lawsuit in the trash and
force the plaintiff(s) to pay the defense fees, if they had requested it via
counter-suit.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581)

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584)

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589)

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1590](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1590)

~~~
jcranmer
18 USC § 2 says:

> (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets,
> counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a
> principal.

> (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed
> by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is
> punishable as a principal.

That does give some more leeway to charge people with crimes here, but I don't
think it is enough to sustain the claims of 1581 and 1584, since it seems to
be meant to be read as "I'm not doing the dirty deed myself, but I'm telling
my henchmen to do it."

------
bluGill
I'm surprised they have a problem. The likes of GM is well known to trace
their supply chain down as many levels as required to ensure this doesn't
exist. GM has already faced this nightmare (I'm not sure if they were sued, or
just got tired of protests) and takes care to ensure that they know who buys
what from who all the way down. GM isn't a big tech buyer, but they are big
enough to be worth changing your practices so you can sell to them. GM isn't
the only company as well, just one that I know of from publicly available
information.

------
skybrian
The structural issue is abstraction caused by complicated supply chains. The
public interface is what the consumer can easily see about the product like
the user experience, branding, and the final purchase price, but it's
supported by lots of hidden infrastructure associated the manufacture of every
part embedded into the product, along with any services provided supporting
the user experience.

Labeling laws are one way to try to make the hidden details of implementation
public at the cost of more complex decision-making for consumers. Sometimes
large companies can police the supply chain themselves, so that from a
consumer perspective, avoiding exploitation becomes part of the brand.

A carbon tax attempts to bundle climate change costs into prices without
changing the public API at all. This seems like the most thorough way to make
sure every buyer at all levels of the supply chain takes this environmental
cost into account in their decision-making, whether they are specifically
thinking about it or not.

So it seems the best way to avoid this issue would be for cobalt based on
child labor to be unavailable for purchase and a second-best way would be to
make sure it's more expensive so that buyers within the supply chain will
automatically avoid that dependency.

When we get to the point where consumers need to step in and do the decision-
making because nobody else will then this is probably the most inefficient way
to do it, but it seems the supply chain won't do it unless they are pushed
into it?

------
baybal2
Cobalt and tantalum are truly the Achilles heel of industrial economies.

No cobalt - no lithium batteries, and no mobile gadgets

No tantalum - no high spec capacitors omnipresent in compact power supplies,
thus again no high value electronics as such unless you want to put huge
electrolytic caps into your smartphone.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Tantalum capacitors have largely been replaced by ceramics in the last decade.
Also, improvements in transistor tech and subsequently in switching power
supply design mean you no longer need massive amounts of capacitance (nor a
giant hand-wound toroidal transformer) for stable voltage output - you get a
much more compact (and also higher-efficiency) power supply with a <100 uF
high-performance ceramic and 0.2 uH chip inductor.

For example, compare this ancient LT app note [1] with this modern datasheet
[2]. The former recommends 450 uH wirewound inductors (see especially the
humorous page 22, which recommends selecting one with an appropriate weight of
less than 0.25 pounds) and 1000 uF solid tantalum monster capacitors. The
latter recommends a 10 uF 0402 ceramic capacitors and 4.7 uH 0805 chip
inductors.

------
krupan
Do we all feel better blaming the tech companies for this than blaming
ourselves, the customers of the tech companies?

~~~
WilliamEdward
Uh, yes? You can force millions of consumers to stop buying things or a single
company to stop producing them.

Which one is easier?

~~~
krupan
I mean, it's not just one company, is it? But it is less than than millions,
so your point probably still stands.

Forcing anyone to do anything is pretty hard though. The U.S. government can
lean on U.S. companies, but will that really save the child miners? Will they
all suddenly not be forced into this type of labor if the U.S. companies stop
using their services? Those kids will suddenly all be enrolled in school and
grow up to be business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, all using cell
phones powered by some much more ethically obtained energy storage device?

I must be feeling down today. Sorry about that.

~~~
overthemoon
I feel the same when I think about how bleak this all is, but this could be
one part of a multipart solution. No, it's not going to magically fix
everything wrong with the global economy. But we have to think about things
like corporate responsibility and legal consequences for companies that use
this material. I suppose I bear some responsibility for not fully researching
the mineral sources of each piece of electronics I buy, but the simple act of
meeting consumer demand is not morally neutral. Putting legal pressure on
companies to not use material mined by children could be helpful (with the
usual caveat wrt the devil & details.)

------
twodave
There's a mining-friendly city in Ontario literally named Cobalt where there
are believed to be large deposits of the mineral. Let's not pretend these
companies don't have any other option than to go through DRC for their supply.

------
zadkey
Aside from the obvious issue that the tech giants do not directly employee
these children (E.G they are employed by a supplier), what other issues come
to mind?

------
ponsin
Using that logic they might as well sue every American who buys products with
Cobalt because they "force" tech companies to provide them with it.

------
supernova87a
The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that, much like the
conflict diamond issue, whether or not these companies are directly
responsible due to this specific industry, it is merely a reflection of the
terrible state of affairs and human rights in these countries. And stopping
mining probably wouldn't improve things much.

Even if these companies (or we as consumers) were to stop doing business and
pull out of these mining industries, the conflict and suffering in such
countries would simply move to some other industry. The people and children
would be toiling in agriculture, fishing, maybe piracy, or slave trade. And I
do not delude myself to think that the supervisors in those industries are
much more charitable than in mining.

While fixing the problems of mining should be done, the underlying root causes
of kids having to mine cobalt would not disappear. So think more deliberately
about whether band-aiding this one symptom will let you wake up with a clear
conscience tomorrow.

------
egdod
> The lawsuit accuses those companies of "knowingly benefiting from and aiding
> and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children." It has not been
> tested in court.

Might as well sue the end users too, if that's a viable theory.

~~~
WilliamEdward
sue millions of consumers or one company... seems like a hard choice.

~~~
egdod
My point is that I am dubious about this legal theory.

------
LatteLazy
Fair is fair: if tech giants are culpable, so is anyone with a smart phone. We
must all cast the first stone at ourselves.

------
sjg007
Maybe tax the crap out of newly mined/imported coltan and institute a robust
elecronics recycling program.

------
dade_
G Corp

Glencore 2018 Annual report: 'the recent appearance of excess levels of
uranium in the cobalt hydroxide being produced at Katanga'
[https://goo.gl/maps/g3VS4pfhS49eduVf8](https://goo.gl/maps/g3VS4pfhS49eduVf8)

------
linuxftw
Ban all trade with countries that use child labor and forced labor, simple as
that.

~~~
digitalsushi
I think if we keep peeling back the veneer on this, every country is going to
have something illegitimate on that front.

~~~
linuxftw
I agree. In the US, we should start domestically. Prisoners earn minimum wage,
prisoners do not owe restitution to the state.

------
2OEH8eoCRo0
Why do countries allow their workers to be abused?

------
francisofascii
Slap a tariff or tax on Cobalt based products coming in. Use the money to
rescue to slave families from their captors. Use force if necessary. Freedom
from slavery everywhere.

------
IXxXI
Only american tech is being sued.

------
ptah
I will be avoiding buying new Lion battery products for foreseeable future

~~~
krupan
Only used ones? I'm serious here. How? How are you going to live in today's
world and keep that promise?

~~~
ptah
I will figure it out.

------
gtfratteus
I highly doubt these companies are directly hiring or managing Cobalt miners.
You might as well also sue anybody who uses a computer. This is purely a
publicity stunt; it will get thrown out immediately.

~~~
surewhynat
You're telling me with 100 billion dollars in the bank you don't fully
understand your supply chain and make an informed decision?

~~~
Nasrudith
They understand it on an abstracted layer because that is all that is needed
for the operation and is relevant. They may know Company a provides X of Y for
Z but every reference is effectively a blackbox. Informed and omniscent aren't
synonymous.

------
onreact
It's about time tech giants take responsibility for the blood minerals they
use.

You can save people's lives by using the Fairphone already. It's free of
those.

~~~
franga2000
No, I can't. Just like sorting my trash won't save any fish/birds/whatever and
riding my bike won't slow down the melting of the ice caps. The carbon
footprint of my entire country is almost exactly 1/100th of the last company
on the "top 100 polluters" list[1].

10 million people are just as powerless as one, if all they do is buy a
different phone or whatever. But 10 million people voting for the politicians
that will impose sanctions on these companies is going to make a difference.
People are willing to buy canvas bags and electric cars, but taking the time
to find a party that's willing to hold companies accountable and voting for
them is just too much work. Don't "vote with your wallet" \- it doesn't work.
Vote with your VOTE!

[1] Carbon Majors Report, CDP, 2017

~~~
franga2000
Hopefully that didn't come across as aggressive against Fairphone or your
comment. I like Fairphone and might actually buy their phone next cycle. This
is just a topic that really matters to me, as I've witnessed what happens when
someone goes down the environmental responsibility rabbit hole to the point of
not being able to properly function because of feeling guilty about basically
every part of modern society. Making sacrifices to make up for other people's
wrongdoing is never a good mentality. You shouldn't give away your money to
people who got robbed. But you should definitely stop voting for the party
that made robbery legal.

~~~
onreact
You don't have to feel guilty, just make informed choices.

Just giving up and taking deaths for granted is cynical.

For example I went vegan and I feel much better now.

I'm saving the planet while at it without "making sacrifices".

Also handing over responsibility to politicians does not work.

As long as people keep on trashing the planet politicians don't care.

Political parties are only catering to mainstream choices.

Thus you need to start a trend that one day will force politicians to act.

~~~
franga2000
See, I'm not giving up on anything here. If I went vegan - hell, if my entire
country went vegan, not a single cow in the entire world would live in better
conditions. Same with emissions, etc. We're a rounding error.

But we have some very good politicians. If I (and enough other people) vote
them into our and later the EU parliament, they will in turn vote for things
like sanctioning companies for shit that goes down in their supply chain,
regulating animal treatment, etc. And that might actually make a difference.

People are way too cynical about politics. Changing your life is great, but
it's not what will ultimately decide the outcome of this mess. Politics is
where the power lies and if a person in power does not agree with you, no
amount of protesting/lifestyle changes is going to make them change their
minds. Politicians are not your enemy - bad politicians are. So vote those out
and vote the good ones in.

------
celticmusic
Then the law needs to change.

It's unconscionable for this to be happening. You make the buyers of that
cobalt start caring, you'll make the producers of that cobalt start caring.

~~~
solidasparagus
I don't think this makes much sense. The mineral supply chain in that part of
the world is ridiculously hard to track. Even when you stop buying directly
from the DRC, the minerals flow over the borders (see how Rwandan coltan
exports jumped when people stopped buying DRC 'conflict' coltan). That part of
the DRC is basically beyond the reach of the Congolese government and the
bordering countries have been waging proxy wars for at least a decade in the
DRC, specifically for mineral control. The problem needs to be addressed at
the local level, not at the international purchasing level - this may make the
tech giants purchase minerals from a new provider, but that is a cosmetic
change that won't actually impact people on the ground in the DRC.

~~~
mcv
It being hard to track is no excuse. We shouldn't be buying products from such
abusive practices. We banned slavery, child labour and other abusive practices
in our own countries, but by allowing the imports of such products from other
countries, we're still indirectly making use of slavery and child labour.

Recently I heard that every person in a wealthy country effectively makes use
of two slaves this way.

So these products being hard to track is no excuse. We should not allow the
import of products where there's any uncertainty about their supply chain.
Tech giants should have a responsibility to know where their minerals come
from.

And this is not just about electronics or about the DRC. I think we shouldn't
let our football teams play in Qatar stadiums built by slaves. We shouldn't be
importing clothes made by child labour. We shouldn't be importing from
countries that don't respect the rights of workers.

We're undermining our own freedom as well as our own economies by allowing
this. We're indirectly abusing people in other countries, but we're also
expecting out workers to compete with them. It's undermining everything we
fought for over the past century.

~~~
solidasparagus
I don't disagree, but if we want to actually help, we need to work with the
world the way it is, not the way we wish it was. Moral grandstanding helps us
feel good more than it helps the people who are actually suffering.

There will always be uncertainty about the supply chain. That's the nature of
the mineral trade AFAIK.

~~~
celticmusic
taking the stance that the exploitation of children is unacceptable and
punishing anyone who does work with those who exploit children is not moral
grandstanding.

~~~
netcan
What do you consider grandstanding?

~~~
pgcj_poster
"Grandstanding" is when someone talks about problems that don't affect me. For
instance, if someone says that we should prevent child slavery, that's
grandstanding because I'm not a slave. On the other hand, if someone says that
whiteboard interviews for engineers are unfair, that's not grandstanding
because I'm an engineer.

Also, if I agree with something, then it's free speech and therefore not
grandstanding.

~~~
celticmusic
grandstanding is when you say or do something for no other purpose than how it
looks to others.

------
SQueeeeeL
I feel like this is essentially trying to sue capitalism. Of course most raw
materials people get is essentially sourced from exploitation. That's just the
result of buying for the cheapest cost.

People don't like seeing how the sausage gets made, like the John Oliver
segment on children making clothes, if they shut this down it will just pop up
again with another company...

~~~
steve-benjamins
Your argument is exactly what industrialists said about child labour in
Britain in the early industrial revolution.

~~~
neonate
This would be less cheap and more convincing if you gave a specific example or
two of how it is exactly what they said.

------
steve-benjamins
Congo produces 2/3rds of the worlds Cobalt. It really doesn't matter if Apple,
Microsoft, Dell, Tesla and Google admit they used child labour.... They have.

Instead of levelling skepticism at the lawsuit, why not level skepticism at
the companies with a collective market cap of ~$2 trillion? Doesn't that seem
more constructive?

There's a real failure of imagination in these comments. Working conditions
can and have been improved by advocacy. Saying child labour is an inevitable
outcome of capitalism is the same argument that was made by slave owners in
the south and Industrialists in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution. You're wrong.

~~~
samatman
30% of 2016's cobalt consumption is 34800 tonnes. Most cobalt is used in
alloys[0], and it is mathematically impossible that each of five companies
uses more than a third of the supply in any case.

In other words, it's quite _possible_ that any, or even all, of those
companies don't use DRC cobalt. I'll grant you that it's unlikely,
particularly in Tesla's case, given how many batteries they produce.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Applications)

