If it's buying retail products, I look at Etsy or Walmart, or smaller sources if possible.
If it's digital infrastructure, I opt for Digital Ocean most often.
I'm increasingly uncomfortable with everything about Amazon and its subsidiaries.
Choosing not to do business with the Carnegie Steel of online shopping just isn't going to change Amazon's market position. There will never be enough people boycotting Amazon due to its inhuman treatment of its workers to offset the value Amazon receives from doing so.
The only solution that I think has a chance of working is public policy, which seems increasingly less likely as political parties are ever further beholden to the interests of their corporate benefactors. It's a bleak outlook, but as the allusion to Carnegie Steel suggests, it isn't the first time the US has found itself in this position. In fact, the parallels between the political economy of the early 20th century and today seem increasingly more aligned.
But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."
I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a political problem, not a consumer problem.
Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism."
That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person, you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you believe in your own ethics.
I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically neutral.
After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't unethical.
There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs. Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.
I'd certainly like to hit Amazon with trust busting regulations, but I have to settle with being "personally responsible" in the meantime.
Public culture and it’s impact via media are greater than they were back in the day I think.
And I think the social value of these gestures - making boycotting companies behaving like amazon normal, and eventually even cool / expected, is a major factor in social change and in precipitating legislation.
But it does take decades.
Voting with your wallet is one half of the solution, voting with your actual vote is the other.
Isn't etsy for handmade/artisan goods? I don't think I ever bought anything handmade/artisan off amazon, but that might just be me. As for walmart, is it any better than amazon? Aren't they also infamous for underpaying their workers?