Because if they take Amazon to court, they no longer have a business. Amazon effectively is a large part of American retail, which they cannot afford to not be on.
I'm fairly sure they don't; at least historically, the goal has been to improve the situation on the ground, not to move production elsewhere. (I think this was the post in which they explained that thinking, but I didn't reread it just now: https://www.fairphone.com/en/2025/10/15/lets-talk-about-fair...)
Universities in the Netherlands usually do not have the free cash for stocking up on parts, in general they take them in your get a loaner and they repair it afterwards or send it back to the manufacturer. But i guess it is a plus the design team is in the same country.
They’re hardly pioneers; my wife’s employer switched from Apple to Fairphone as the pre-selected option a few years ago. They have about 10k employees.
You seem to have a somewhat decent grasp of the facts, but honestly, if you don’t work on your tone, your posts will keep getting downvoted. If you like to yell at scream and call people incompetent, go off to Twitter or some other place that will have you. HN tries to maintain something called tone.
Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? I predict the nation will be very unstable for decades ahead.
The action is smaller scale, but the ethics of it are the same: it’s abhorrent. The justifications are paper-thin ”the people deserve democracy”, while everyone knows the only interest served is that of the US government.
"Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? "
I don't think so. The Near East is a simmering cauldron of ancient ethnic and sectarian hatreds. Compared to that, Venezuela is ethnically and religiously almost homogeneous.
There is no equivalent of mad clerics preaching to their flock that they have to exterminate their heretic neighbours and that God will grant them paradise for doing so.
That’s the same talking point the far right uses for why the US shouldn’t get involved in Ukraine because they worry about a destabilized Russia if Putin goes away.
It’s some sort of dictator insurance policy. The idea that they are there because the country will likely just do it again but worse given the chance.
I’d say it’s easily the most common talking point I’ve seen from westerners on Twitter against overly supporting Ukraine and specifically providing them advanced American weaponry to strike within Russia proper, which was the biggest debate/controversy for about two years.
Also not necessarily “remove Putin by force”, it’s create instability in Russia where there’s a power vacuum if they lose badly in Ukraine.
Everyone just takes all of their American foreign policy lessons from Iraq and applies it broadly because Iraq briefly had ISIS and other extremist pop up
It’s also deeply rooted in a lack of respect for the general public in those countries, who they think will keep supporting evil regardless
”Following the war on social media” is a highway to poor psychological health, so I’ve avoided that after the first few weeks of the Russian invasion. In retrospect, I think I’m better off for having missed these far-right talking points.
Edit: Twitter? Why would anyone but the far right still be on Twitter these days?
Not necessarily, but there is the risk that ELN will further consolidate power. Maybe the US dies not want the group's leader, Antonio Garcia, to be the next president of Venezuela.
reply