Usually I don’t like this argument because it shifts the discussion from something you can control to something you can’t which justifies doing nothing.

But in this case, talking about the difference between multiple consumer goods makes sense because you are in control of all of them.

Simply not buying an oversized car does more than a lifetime of using phones for longer.

there are enough people in the world to deal with both. it’s whataboutism pure and simple

If you care about the environment start somewhere other than e-waste.

I don’t mean this to be facetious, but they pointed out that this is whataboutism, and you, in more or less words, disagreed and said ‘what about this other e-waste that should be dealt with?’

besides this, how many people do you know that don’t have a phone? how often on average do you think people replace their phones?

compare those answers to other tech/machinery that you may be thinking of starting with.

also, finally, the top-level comment here takes a really shallow view of how the world economy works. yes if there was a shortage of these materials, there would be an economic incentive to recycle them properly, but that doesn’t mean that the obtaining of these materials doesn’t have a huge human or environmental cost. just because you can get a material cheaply doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with doing it

This is true of course, but we shouldn't discard any attempt to improve the situation, just because there are bigger fish to try.

Sure, but not everyone has the same opportunities. So I'd say we should focus on the best we _can_ do personally.

It's better for me to focus on recycling my electronics than focusing on the ecological impact of the modern commercial satellites madness. Because I cannot do anything about Starlink and the likes, but I can recycle my phone.