I often watch Asmongold since he's entertaining, rational, and I despise an echo chamber. I think I only agree with his takes about half the time, but since he lays out his views in a logical manner, I know why I disagree with some of his takes and where he's coming from. Sometimes it's because of a difference in values, and sometimes I think he's just missing information. (Likely, in some cases, I'm the one missing information)
A very interesting video he recently reacted to was Thinking-Ape's video "Asmongold Is Right About People". (Here's Asmongold's reaction) I recommend at least watching the original Thinking-Ape video, but to some up, he discusses why people are indifferent to things like conflict minerals and AI art. He talks about how, in psychology, we have a small group of people who we really care about (family and close friends), and a larger group (130-150, Dunbar's number) of people who we somewhat care about (friends and coworkers). He states that the reason why people are indifferent to conflict minerals, AI art, amazon warehouse conditions, etc. is because it does not impact them or anyone they care about.
I think this is only half-true. I believe Thinking-Ape failed to take into consideration tribalism (the large scale group-forming that humans do). If our "camp" would be the close family and friends, then our "band" is Dunbar's number of friends/coworkers/etc., and our "tribe" is a symbolic group (traditionally around 1000-2000 people, but much larger these days) that enables large-scale cooperation and acts as a hedge against genetic stochasticity/"bad luck" genetic drift (Both Alison Brooks and David R. Samson have written about this in more depth than I could). To sum up, a "tribe" could be religious, nationalist, an ethnolinguistic group, etc. but is typically based upon symbols of some sort. It creates a broad "in-group" of people who we trust, which is also differentiated from an "out-group" of strangers.
People care about people they identify with (the "tribe"), otherwise nobody would complain about these things in the first place. It's not so much "people don't care unless something affects them," it's "people don't care unless something affects them or theirs." For example, Asmongold doesn't play any of the Yakuza games, or watch Lovely Complex, but he identifies with gamers and anime fans in general (his "tribe"), so to him, it becomes an important issue. In his video about woke translators in video games, he even suggests that people should stop buying those games. Contrast this with his views on AI art: Asmongold does not identify with artists (and, additionally, their concerns seem counter to that of his own "tribe"), so to him it's a nonissue that only crazy people care about.
However, if a "tribe" has certain moral/ethical values that it considers to be a tribal signal, this can allow people to take actions that benefit strangers. Although historically these are religious, secular groups such as PETA and Doctors Without Borders also exist, with specific ethical values that their "tribe" members hold (Don't eat meat, do no harm, etc.).
This is part of why some "impersonal" boycotts are successful. For example, the 1791 sugar boycott in England was largely successful. It was led by the highly religious (e.g: tribal) Quakers who were protesting sugar made from slaves. None of the Quakers were personally impacted by slavery, and it's unlikely that any of them would be personally familiar with slaves on the other side of the world. However, the ethics/morals of the Quakers at that time were a strong tribal symbol for them, so by boycotting, you would be signalling your allegiance to the Quaker "tribe." Importantly, they pushed it into a nondenominational issue, to the extent that half a million people, most of which were not Quakers, were boycotting sugar made by slaves. They did this by framing it as an issue for British society, talking about the dangers of consumerism and "modern consumption." So then, instead of antislavery just being a Quaker tribal signal, it became a British tribal signal. See "Moral Commerce" if you're curious about the details.
Naturally, tribalism is a double-edged sword. "Tribalism" is why people would be okay with slavery in the first place: if you're not part of the group, you're the Other. And it is incredibly common to dehumanize the Other.
Tangentially, I think another aspect of consumer indifference is that many things are difficult to change at the individual level. Personally, I no longer shop at Amazon, but obviously this isn't even a dent in their sales. Most people aren't going to do that because the convenience and price factors are too good to pass up. Even if I got 1000 of my friends to stop shopping at Amazon, that wouldn't noticeably affect their sales. On the other hand, if me and a 1000 of my friends all start shopping at a local, independent book store, that will have a tremendous effect on that bookstore's sales.
With ethical issues involving things that we largely import, it's difficult to have any sort of effect at the individual level. With things like coffee and chocolate, alternatives exist if you're willing to spend a few more dollars. With things like conflict minerals, the most you can do is try to purchase either used electronics or electronics with a long lifetime. I absolutely detest the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism," since I feel like people use it as a cop-out to avoid doing anything, but there is some truth to this.
Anyways, I hope that makes it clear that people aren't really selfish or indifferent, we mostly just have limited moral concerns based on the needs/wants of our "tribe."