But a fair point nonetheless.

This article is from 2015. By then it's been 10 years since the company started, and he already left it. In the article he explains that still only 25% of the cacao used in Tony's Chocolonely is guaranteed slave-free, let alone that they've had any significant impact on the industry at large. He says the situation of slave labor in cacao industry has only worsened. Tony's has changed the message on their product "100% slave free" (which was false advertising) to something like "working together towards slave-free chocolate", which he concludes to be meaningless marketing. It's rather bizarre that such a message is allowed on a product that contains cacao from slave-labor....

Some info, that's interesting and helps balance this blatant advertisement. Tony's was started by Dutch television maker Teun van der Keuken. He worked on a program that exposes products for their production methods and false marketing and so on. They stumbled onto the slavery that's part of the cacao industry. He asked to be arrested for eating chocolate, and in doing so enabling slave labor, but he wasn't. He started out Tony's Chocolonely to attempt to change the chocolate industry. He's not part of the company anymore. He has concluded the mission has failed, and is very critical of his former company, saying they've lost sight of the aim: slave-free chocolate.

If you have a lot of money

• ~~you contributed a lot to society~~
• you took a lot from society

If you're a successful businessman and you want to contribute, perhaps you could lower the prices of your products, perhaps you could give shares to your employees who do all the work. Not only is it efficient for them to have a stake in the company, it's also only fair. Not doing so is unfair. We won't celebrate your 'success', a successful thief is a thief nonetheless. You doing so-called 'philanthropy' won't do any good either. Money is power, you exerting your power over us isn't the moral thing to do. It's still wrong to the core. Sure, people voluntarily giving money to all sorts of causes is a beautiful thing, but only if money is reasonably distributed among people in the first place. If you take money from society on a large scale and then exert this power, than undoubtedly your views and interests are disproportionately represented. Your intentions are dubious, because if you intended well, why did you keep all the money and power for yourself in the first place? It's likely that you're a power hungry maniac. But even if you're somehow naively unaware of this and truly have the noblest of intentions with your philanthropy, then it's still a ludicrous idea that this would be an efficient way to distribute money. It's quite obvious that if everyone got a say in where the money goes, that the distribution of assets would better represent what society deems important. It's only logical that if you get to distribute the money, it will go to things you deem important. If you think that makes sense, it can only mean that you deem yourself wiser, more moral, than all of humanity combined. It means you are a narcissist. It's not unlikely that you are, people who are successful money-wise, often think that life it a money-game and they're the winning players. And they have won because they work hard and are clever. The thing is, life isn't a money-game, people have moral compasses and strive towards others goals than making money. And even if it was a money-game, you've not won because you're so smart and hard-working, it is in a very large part due to your luck. That's not an allegation, it's a logical fact. People don't have the same starting positions. Being a billionaire is morally wrong, even if you give all of it away later in life.

That's a lot of words for saying: focus on buying houses, and keep them so no one else can buy these houses.

Also it's not at all obvious that you'll accomplish it before others get houses/hotels.

Maybe billionaires should be filmed and streamed continuously, since their behavior has such a big impact on the world. If they don't like it maybe we shouldn't allow them to control such incredible assets. I'm sure billionaires have nothing sketchy to hide, right? What we will see is probably how they are hard working people who are not at all detached from normal folks. Right?

Have you seen how we deal with factory chickens? In comparison this orca is probably lucky.

There's no limit to human cruelty against animals.

I don't like AI but I hate intellectual property. And the people that want to restrict AI don't seem to understand the implications that has. I am ok with copying as I think copyright is a load of bullocks. But they aren't even reproducing the content verbatim are they? They're 'taking inspiration' if you will, transforming it into something completely different. Seems like fair use to me. It's just that people hate AI, and hate the companies behind it, and don't get me wrong, rightfully so, but that shouldn't get us all to stop thinking critically about intellectual property laws.

Europe is voting this weekend. If you care about copyright reform, you should consider voting for the European Pirate Party. IA is probably in the wrong here, legally. But many would argue it's morally right to have free access to information. Sure, shadow libraries are popping up everywhere and we have access to more information than ever before, but if we really want access for everyone, we need different copyright laws, and for that we need politicians.

Isn't being proud of your sexuality mostly a response to being shamed by bigots for your sexuality? Like: parts of society look down on my sexuality? Well fuck you, I'm proud of it! If you're not being shamed at all, isn't a bit weird to be proud of such things? As if you did anything to become a heterosexual. No one cares, nor should they.

The Children's Investment Fund Management (TCI) is not a charity, it is a hedgefund. Even this letter was sent on behalf of TCI. They're apparently one of the most activist investors out there. And not activism in a good way, their only focus is maximizing profits. So activism means: demanding lay-offs, doing unsolicited take-overs of other companies, etc. And then after a few years dumping the company again. They themselves probably have all sorts of thoughts about how they play an important function in an economy because they are ruthless and force changes in the markets. To put 'children's' in the name is just a scam that aims to make them sound innocent. But just this fact tells you a lot about how these people operate. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children%27s_Investment_Fund_Management

Completely quit Reddit. It's a shame that the article fails to mention the fediverse as a new rising alternative in response to enshittification.