Well, after this article, I actually know there are electronic manufacturers that do check their supply chains for at least some types of abuses (namely Intel, and there is hope they are not the only ones). Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible.
My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.
[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).
