[why-o-why]

Excellent!

This discussion will proceed as follows: you will present a laundry list of examples, and if I answer NO to any of them, you win. It will play out as the illustration of the fallacy of all or nothing: if I am not 100% pure, then I am 100% wrong.

What you will fail to understand, is that in the real world "doing the best one can" still has an impact. So I might not answer 100% all of your questions, but it doesn't mean my decisions don't have any impact. The absurdity can be illustrated by rewording: "if we can't prevent all crime, we should stop enforcing it", or "if you can't feed all the hungry children, we shouldn't bother feeding any".

Unfortunately for you, I will not play your purity test game so that you can feel smug, but I will say that I do my best and I pay attention, and whenever feasible I vote with my wallet to buy from or invest in companies with stated goals that align with human rights, and I will feel disappointment over not making the "best possible choice" at every opportunity, but that will position me to do better next time. Because perfection is the enemy of progress.

[eunos]

Likewise with the rise of "Global South" especially China I'm glad that this aberration would lose more meaning as the time goes. Might as well decide things based on daily zodiac.

[Lionga]

He just asked a single questions, and you seem to be unable to answer it.

[why-o-why]

What didn't you understand? The point isn't whether I do specific thing A or specific thing B, the point is that when I can I do the best in the situation to improve the average. The specifics don't matter. It is the overall impact. OP is playing the "debate" game which is about winning, and not about the issue itself. It is because OP doesn't care to understand, they just want to score points, hence their desire to focus on specific instances.

Had OP said something like "How can you make an informed decision congruent with your ethics when so many ubiquitous companies violate human rights?" that would have been a genuine question. Instead OP said "Tell me why you don't do X" and behind that is "because I win." That's arguing from bad faith (a polite way to describe OP).

[heinternets]

Isn't there a spectrum of phone manufacturers which go from fairly bad on human rights to fairly good?

[Melonai]

I mean you did ask people to ask you anything... :)

Though let me approach this from a more good faith angle, what are the steps you are trying to do to make better purchasing and consumption decisions?

I understand your point, it isn't all or nothing. I do try to make better decisions in regards to products created with blood, though I often falter, I use a Google phone, no idea how many children had to extract rare minerals for it to be created, and I buy cheap hardware from China and that's a whole other deal. However I avoid Temu and Shien, I don't eat meat due to the industry and carbon impact, I almost never use single-use and disposable plastic items to lower consumption in general, I avoid cars, almost always taking public transport, and regarding Fairphone, I am definitely eying them for a future phone, though right now there were some downsides that I couldn't take (for now, phone progress is slowing down, making it easier for them to catch up, hopefully soon). I don't do enough, and a lot of my decisions are based on climate impact and not human rights, I know, so, it'd be great to hear your thoughts!

[Novosell]

Well, seeing as you're not even responding to me, just previous people you've interacted with I guess I can't really say much.

But I will say that I ask specifically about the Fairphone because I've met many ethical, anti-capitalist, humanitarians, vegan, etc etc people who still don't apply any of their morals to the purchase of their cellphone and won't own up to it. I always found it an interesting piece of consistent dissonance.