[lazaroclapp]

The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? How many would be able to name any other compatible chip brand that is conflict-free?

Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor". Maybe that's the "price signal" you send, but that doesn't imply that it is your conscious ethical decision. You may be more than willing to support laws that forbid conflict chips from being sold in your country, even if those laws cause a surge in computing equipment prices.

Maybe go one step less than that and sell conflict chips like we sell cigarettes: with a huge picture of some kid with their leg blown up in the box. If people still buy them then (despite conflict-free alternatives existing), then you can make the argument that they are implicitly (but consciously) deciding cheap chips matter more than dying people.

[nickpsecurity]

"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? "

That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now.

"Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor"."

I disagree as many people in U.S. know about what capitalism, cheap labor, and other things result in. Just talk to a bunch of them sometime if you doubt that. What you'll see is they know to some degree but put it out of their mind. It's a problem but not their problem. It's called an externality in economics but I call it not giving a shit.

In any case, I said I'd go with your version of things. So, now readers know all kinds of horrible shit might have gone into their electronics to get them here. Which person fighting for good is now (a) intentionally harming people for the greater good or (b) disconnecting and selling their devices to prevent harm? They know now. So, the choice is informed and intentional.

[lazaroclapp]

Well, after this article, I actually know there are electronic manufacturers that do check their supply chains for at least some types of abuses (namely Intel, and there is hope they are not the only ones). Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible.

My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.

[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).

[nickpsecurity]

"Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible."

Very reasonable position.

"My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]."

My experience in activism for civil rights, privacy, less corruption, and so on suggests people just don't care. It has to literally take almost no mental effort in America or most won't lift a finger. Unless it's one of those hot button issues. They'll at least talk a lot about it on Facebook while some take action. Apathy reigns supreme here, though, as we've seen time after time.

"(even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard)"

Haha. Low standards reign, too.

"involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries;"

TPP shows it going in the opposite direction with more concentration of power into elites' hands and reinforcement of prior stuff. Individual companies might do better, though, hopefully.