Yes, but the implication of “given the medal to look at” and “pocketing FIFA medal” is that Trump “stole” it or wasn’t supposed to keep it, which I haven’t seen supported by a credible source yet.

Edit: regarding your own edit (adding the second image), I found no information at the linked source supporting the sentence as presented.

If you have credible evidence saying it was only gifted retroactively, please link it. The video evidence does not appear support that interpretation of events.

I’m all for dunking on him but it looks like he was given it, and I haven’t seen any other evidence suggesting the medal was intended to be given back: https://youtu.be/b5I2adhIn7U?t=174

Fake news isn’t less bad just because it’s “your side” doing it

and welcome to the jam

deleted by creator

I think you’ve tilted slightly too far towards cynicism here, though “it might not be as ‘fair’ as you think” is probably also still largely true for people that don’t look into it too hard. Part of my perspective is coming from this random video I watched not long ago which is basically an extended review of the Fairphone 5 that also looks at the “fair” aspect of things.

Misc points:

• In targeting Scope 2 emissions they went with renewables to get down to 0 Scope 2 emissions. (p13)
• In targeting Scope 3 emissions they rejigged their transportation a little (ocean freight instead of flying, it sounds like?) to reduce emissions there. (p14)
• In targeting Scope 3 emissions they used an unspecified level of renewable energy in late manufacturing with modest claimed emissions reductions. (p14)
• Retired some carbon credits, which, yes, are usually not as great as we would like, but still. (p14)
• They may have some impact by choice of supplier even when they don’t necessarily directly spend extra cash on e.g., higher worker payments.
• They may have some impact by engaging with suppliers. They provide small-scale examples of conducting worker satisfaction surveys via independent third party which seemed to provide some concrete improvements (p30) and “supporting” another supplier in “implementing best practices for a worker-management safety committee” (p30).
• They’re reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals in final assembly, and according to them they are “the first company to start eliminating CEPN’s second round priority chemicals” (p31). I don’t know much about this.
• With partners, they “organize school competitions in which children are educated about […] e-waste” (p40).
• They’re “building local recycling capacity” in Ghana by “collaborating” with recycling companies (p40).
• Extremely high repairability (with modest costs for replacement parts that make it financially sensible to repair instead of replace) keeps more phones in use, reducing all the bad parts of having to manufacture brand new phones.
• The ICs make up a huge portion of the environmental costs of the phone (both with the FP4 (pp 40-41) and with the FP5 (p10)), and Fairphone isn’t big enough to get behemoth chip manufacturers to change their processes (though apparently they’re lobbying Qualcomm for socketable designs, as unlikely as that is to happen any time soon). If you accept the premise that for around half of the phone they have almost no impact on in terms of the manufacturing side, it makes their efforts on the rest a bit better, I guess?

So yes, they are a long way from selling “100% fair” phones, but it seems like they’re inching the needle a bit more than your summary suggests, and that’s not nothing. It feels like you’ve skipped over lots of small-yet-positive things which are not simply “low economy of scale manufacturing” efforts.