Transparency Metrics Make Moral Decisions Impossible
The other day, a colleague scolded me for being a hypocrite when I mentioned that his Claude Code subscription directly supports fascists in USA. He wasn’t wrong. The first thing he asked was: which laptop do you have? Which OS are you running? Apple? That is responsible for forced child labour in the East to mine precious metals and assimilate their mass-produced laptops? And you talk of fascists? Ha! I did want to mention that the laptop is nearly seven years old but didn’t get the chance. The conclusion? If you want to live by a moral code, you do not work in IT. The scolding happened in a casual way amongst colleagues, as colleagues often do—but again, I think he has a point. The same point as the ridiculousness of a Free Software Foundation sticker on the laptop , or the same point as trying to decide which laptop to buy after this one . How am I as a humble consumer supposed to decide which company is the “lesser evil”? Do I buy open hardware where I can put truly free and libre software on that aligns with my ethics? Or do I buy a flashy laptop with hard-to-beat components (oh, and 100% recycled aluminium, dear colleague) that comes with the downsides of macOS and perhaps shady lawsuits brushed under the mat? I am not an expert at the field of hardware (or let’s say, IT) ethics, so I have to rely on the opinion of experts on this. Luckily, technical reports are dutifully published (and no doubt nudged in the morally just direction) containing information on CO2 production per unit produced—this is called the “Lifecycle Assessment or LCA”—giving us humble consumers a way to easily compare laptop 1 with laptop 2 when it comes to the initial environmental cost. Or so you’d think. In The Score , C. Thi Nguyen explains that such a heavily condensed metric trades trust for transparency. We simply don’t trust experts: when we ask an Apple or Samsung engineering manager “is your stuff ethically just?” what do you think the answer will be? So we invent numbers to keep the cheating at bay. But that forces experts to decontextualise these numbers, resulting in: We now created another problem: comparing these numbers became impossible. First, the last Pro versions of the Framework laptop is missing numbers. Second, what does a single number say about the ethical standpoint of the entire company? According to the Business and Human Rights Centre , forced labour in tech industry supply chains remains a huge problem. Samsung supposedly does much better than say NVIDIA. Suppose for a moment Apple works with NVIDIA: which number do you trust now? The low CO2 one or the high “uh oh child labour” one? You see, dear colleague, I take this shit seriously—because shit it most definitely is. In the end, I still think you’re right: none of these giant companies act morally just. Some form of pollution—environmental, economical, human rights-related—sticks on every single piece of circuit board. And while that’s depressing, the point is that you as a humble consumer still have the power to mitigate this by choosing the lesser evil. In Blizzard’s Diablo terms: go for Andariel or Duriel, but avoid Mephisto. Yet the best option is to postpone the purchase. I doubt this will shock anyone, so just as a reminder to myself, the best action to take is to: A few more side notes. First; for me, a MacBook (even an Air) is surprisingly enough built to outlive the average laptop up to a ratio of two to three times as long—making the perhaps “unethical” Apple a more ethical choice. Another point against transparency metrics. Second; a morally just decision is a personal one . As Seb pointed out while we exchanged conversations regarding this topic, we each have to draw our own line in the sand somewhere. For me, that’s giving money to Anthropic. I am also looking at a Framework Pro as my next laptop because I miss Linux 1 and support the idea of free and libre software. Heck, I’m typing this in Emacs—yes, in macOS. Because it’s still a Unix environment, and then I can move on with my life, as sometimes I get stuck in making these endless decisions. To me, LCA scores are meaningless. And as Nguyen has pointed out, any score can and will be gamed. I work in higher education; I’m all too familiar with cheating the system—both from the standpoint of a student as that of an institution trying to maintain the yearly funding budget by any means necessary. Almost a thousand words later, here’s a conclusion: I am postponing buying a new laptop. Yet the Linux Kernel is being built in assistance with Claude Code which is very very worrying. No worries though, we’re chugging along, collectively looking the other way. ↩︎ By Wouter Groeneveld on 13 October 2026. Reply via email . Apple’s 2025 MacBook Air: 155 kg CO2e Framework’s 2022 laptop: 200 kg CO2e Lenovo’s 2020 ThinkPad X1 Yoga Gen 6 20XY: 520 kg CO2e Refuse buying. You don’t need a new laptop right now. Wait another year. The RAM crisis will help with this. Repair if possible. Maximise that lifespan. Buy second hand or refurbished to avoid starting that factory production process. If you really have to; “vote with your wallet”: make a morally just decision. Yet the Linux Kernel is being built in assistance with Claude Code which is very very worrying. No worries though, we’re chugging along, collectively looking the other way. ↩︎