[THIS IS GOING TO GET VERY POLITICAL VERY QUICK, DO NOT CONTINUE READING IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO SUFFER A POLITICS MIGRAINE, THE DAILY NEWS ARE BAD ENOUGH AS-IS FOR MOST]
This is a free/libre-software community, and all is well, I have no plans to integrate closed-source software in my photography pipeline whatsoever… However I do have to contend that hardware plays about as much of a role as software does for real “technological freedom” per-se, I think Richard Stallman would agree too?
I have noticed over-time that the sheer majority of camera brands are more or less funded by or profiteering from arms-trading or war to some degree.
Fujifilm has paid stock dividends to Blackrock and other various investment companies who have bought out portions of Fujifilm, companies that invest and operate brands like Lockheed Martin. Furthermore Fujifilm was caught lobbying in the United States during 2024, paying thousands of dollars to Democrat candidate Kamala Harris and current President Donald J. Trump, I don’t want my money going to American politicians.
Leica is the same as above.
Nikon seems to have been gradually attempting to replace sensors made by Sony with those made by a company called ‘Tower Semiconductor’, especially in their pro-grade D850 DSLR, a company headquartered and producing on stolen land, specifically land stolen after ethnic cleansing.
Sony supplies parts to weapon manufacturers, particularly Israeli drones and missiles used on Gazans, aswell as Ukrainian, Russian, Iranian & Chinese AI-enabled munitions
Panasonic was in bed with the very same Tower Semiconductors that Nikon is partnered with, with a whole sensor-production factory and 41% share in a co-owned spin-off company, though they seem have to abandoned that deal in 2014, this is still highly “questionable”.
Canon’s okay, track record is not perfect but not outright benefiting from murder.
to my knowledge: OM System, Pentax and Sigma are the 100% safe companies to buy from - fully in-house Japanese production and lens design too, which is always a plus in my books.
I’m trying to find an ethical way to do photography, I find it personally hypocritical for myself to be an artist and FOSS user yet spend thousands of dollars on the worst of capitalism. I would like to ask if any of you have any information regarding this, whether some companies are “okay” and whether the three listed above are actually not as nice as they seem.
Almost every valuable public, and some private, company on earth has shares acquired by Blackrock, Vanguard, etc, so of course they will end up paying them dividends, just like they do any other stockholder. At the end of the day the money is not even going to Blackrock but the owners(common people) of the funds in which the stock is part of.
So you;re saying BlackRock wouldn’t profit from capital appreciation? why would they even bother investing, then?
I don’t see your point in particular?
I’m trying to weed out the companies that aren’t paying dividends to said companies, let alone do what Sony does which is out-right unethical profiteering as far as I can see
Good to know all of my camera gear is currently murder-free. Hoping it stays that way. (I am simultaneously serious and lighthearted about this sentiment)
It’s hard to buy any purely FOSS-friendly hardware, not just cameras, so it’s not something I think too hard about. But I do think this type of stuff is worth considering if you have the ability to make that part of your purchasing decisions.
Pinhole cameras would be the most ethical of all…but if that’s not what is desired, then I don’t think there’s any other option but to support those companies.
But you don’t have to add to the profits directly…buy used.
I’ve given up on that a long time ago it’s hard enough scouting for laptops that have full Linux vendor firmware support as-is, I don’t think any of the in-house camera processing software has FOSS OS support either
this is the best choice for many, but its not always the most straightforward path, for example, many new photographers will spend long amounts of time researching the hardware of famous photographers to try and achieve their “look”, so if you end up becoming a successful photographer with a used camera, you’d still be indirectly creating a public presence for the company you specifically bought used goods of to avoid investing in their unethical practices, or you could just be walking around the street and a clueless bystander would ask “what kind of camera is that?”, and by answering them truthfully you’d have implanted an image of that brand in their memory, unless you want to have a long discussion about the ethics of consumption with every stranger you see on the street and telling them to go with something else lol… this is not too different from using Darktable instead of Lightroom in midst of Adobe’s recent debacles and being vocal about it - its just a lot more comfortable supporting a brand you know is in the clear, morally and from an artistic standpoint, Leica for example is a company so dead-set on making sure everybody knows that their cameras are the tools of the greats that their archives have been caught mislabeling a picture from Vietnam as having been shot with a Leica when it was actually taken with a Pentax.
Furthermore, at some point you’re going to want something new, you’re gonna want new batteries to replace dead ones, you’re gonna want new grips because official first party grips are often hard to find for reasonable prices for many cameras, especially the higher-end models that support things like weather sealing or extra buttons… etc. etc.
Of course they profit, through things they own directly, and through commissions, but that’s just how it is. How is Fujifilm to blame if someone else acquires its shares? Anyone is free to do so.
You would have to blacklist every public, and a lot of private, companies on earth since at any time there are shady and unethical owners of stock receiving dividends.
that might be true, but I’d atleast like to ask of them to not take $30,000 of that money given to them by their ~44% foreign corporation ownership to lobby in US politics…
I believe minimization whenever possible is best, you can’t really go 100%.
I would say that the general rule of thumb to becoming genuinely ethical is to do an inventory of one’s choices and learn from them. We cannot avoid societal flaws but we can educate ourselves about best practices and unwrap our own assumptions about what is ethical or not. Through introspection do we realize that what we used to assume as good is not in fact that great. Then spiral into depression, and then realize that purism is not the way, but admitting that we are as flawed as the system and can do better.
Personally, I choose minimalism so much so that GAS and consumerism is negligible. Sure, I miss out on 99% on what the forum members experience, but that is the cost I am willing to take.
When it comes down it to, almost all electronics parts are made in China, and we’re back to Foxconn putting up nets around their buildings to keep their employees from jumping to their death from their dormitories.
This is a problem that as far as I’m concerned can only be fixed by yet another Maoist revolution, underpaid labour occurs everywhere, and there’s places where it is significantly worse than China, particularly that of most European raw material companies, yet I still think direct profit from genocide is relatively, well, no, a lot worse, and a lot more avoidable.
if we take it from the “it’s all made in China anyways” route and stick to it, why stop there? why not go use proprietary software instead, since, for example, my Linux distribution of choice’s download servers are hosted by volunteers in Chinese universities, most likely using servers made by Chinese tech companies? it’s a very reductive approach, I feel.
Indeed, purism is not the way, it is also unachievable, but between two camera companies, if both make perfectly fine modern cameras, and one isn’t making sensors for missiles, why would I choose the latter?
We live in a world where the division of labor is very pronounced. In my opinion, it makes little sense to boycott individual companies.
If we want change, we need to change structures and improve our society as a whole. It is not possible to live an “ethical” life without completely opting out of our modern globalized world economy. This may be possible for a few privileged “dropouts,” but it is not an option for humanity as a whole. So rather than appeasing our conscience with “ethical” photography, we should become politically active and make the world a better place.
I agree, but I don’t know why this is mutually exclusive with making more “educated” purchase decisions. Some of these companies are just simply playing blind to current events and directly profiteering and not just pulling themselves through the reality of the market.
You can appease your conscience with both political activism and ethical use of purchasing power, they invented the saying ‘Vote with your wallet’ for a reason, no?
Yes, you can do whatever you want. But in my case, I not only buy camera hardware but a lot of other stuff. When I would try to avoid all companies that act “unethical”, I would have to investigate 48 hours a day .
You’ve made it black or white, and it is clearly gray. Your line of thinking is reductive, yes.
What I mean was that at a very base level of technology, things are unethical and it is difficult to be ethical when almost every bit of technological manufacture is unethical.
So you choose the most ethical.
Frankly that Blackrock is invested in Fujifilm is not a black eye on Fuji, they have no way to control who does or does not invest in them when investment is done on the stock market.
I find it difficult to reason about this kind of thing, since its fucked from the beginning. I try and take my victories where I can get them. For instance I like my framework laptop because maybe I can not produce just a small amount of ewaste. Yet framework has given money to DHH, who is a bigot. Reducing ewaste is a victory and I choose to take that victory because no other company offers something like this, even though I feel they’ve been morally unjust in giving money or hardware to a known bigot.
it’s hard enough scouting for laptops that have full Linux vendor firmware support as-is, I don’t think any of the in-house camera processing software has FOSS OS support either
.