> Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position.[1]
The discussion whether it's true or not is less important at this point than the fact that Governments is responsible for making sure that there are rules to be followed. The main problem here is that most governments themselves are also run by the same profit-seeking entities/people. The whole situation right now is based on the fact that everyone moved their production to china with complete disregard for everything but short term gain.
Amazons Bezos is in fact not wrong when he says that he's not going to pay tax out of some altruistic ideas, but that it is in fact up to governments to make proper legislation. It's just that governments are busy doing nothing but talking for the most part(or at least have learned to do nothing over the past decades). I actually had a social democrat party member tell me a couple years ago, that the politicians have a really hard job travelling around talking, and having to read consultant written legislation. This is in effect not that different from tech ceo's scheduling 4 hours of meetings every day and calling it work.
Most people don't actually want to change the status quo, they just want to put blame on someone.
> Intel not take a position against Xinjiang
Because PRC position is coerced labour doesn't exist. It's decades old rural labour transfer programs + vocational training that pays multitudes more than regional norms and competitive with national wages is being portrayed as slave labour by US propaganda. If you want to make money in PRC, comport with PRC position or at least figure out messaging to pave over contradictions and save face. Ergo, US companies are forced to comply with US laws and holds no position on which narrative is correct.
The US casts a blanket assumption that ALL products from the region are produced by slave labor unless proven otherwise. That’s backwards.
And meanwhile US government and corporations have no problem buying products produced by US prison slave labor, or overseas child labor.
Let’s ask the UN what they think about China’s response to terrorism in Xinjiang after investigating.
> Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang, including setting up vocational education and training centers. Now safety and security has returned to Xinjiang and the fundamental human rights of people of all ethnic groups there are safeguarded. The past three consecutive years has seen not a single terrorist attack in Xinjiang and people there enjoy a stronger sense of happiness, fulfillment and security.
> What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the media. We call on relevant countries to refrain from employing unfounded charges against China based on unconfirmed information before they visit Xinjiang.
"We commend China’s remarkable achievements in the field of human rights by adhering to the people-centered development philosophy and protecting and promoting human rights through development. We also appreciate China’s contributions to the international human rights cause."
And you're suggesting that we're supposed to take this seriously?
> In line with standard practice, immediately after receiving a series of serious allegations in August 2019 in connection with the Xinjiang Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project, the Bank launched a fact-finding review, and World Bank senior managers traveled to Xinjiang to gather information directly. After receiving the allegations, no disbursements were made on the project.
> The team conducted a thorough review of project documents, engaged in discussions with project staff, and visited schools directly financed by the project, as well as their partner schools that were the subject of allegations.
> The review did not substantiate the allegations.
1. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world...
US sanctioned XPCC in charge of XJ cotton, ergo John Deere can no longer sell advanced cotton picking machinery to XJ cotton industry despite 4000% increase in orders year prior. 70% of XJ cotton was automated already, predominately in North. XPCC wanted to buy harvesters to automate 30% of XJ south cotton that relied more on manual labour until "slave labour" programs paid enough that manual labour no longer profitable. Because slave labour involves compensation so high that importing expensive US machines becomes more economic. So why would US not want John Deere to sell XPCC machines that would eliminate alleged coerced labour... oh wait.
They could start there.
If you want to petition for better prisons, please do so. Please do not detract from the campaign of ethnic cleaning the rest of us are talking about.
Are Intel execs given objective reports by independent journalists who are given access to all areas and are free to write an report as they want on it? Until then, Intel execs should assume that any rumor of wrongdoing in the province is true. It's as simple as that.
One simply doesn't get the benefit of "no wrongdoing until proven" without a free media.
If the US gov't was truly concerned about human rights abuses, then they would not be so biased against China in particular while turning a blind eye or directly funding other very egregious human rights violations.
No the US did not sanction Saudi Arabia for Khashoggi's murder, specifically to avoid damaging their relationship https://sanctionscanner.com/knowledge-base/sanctions-against...
> ...the Coalition is conducting an ongoing campaign of genocide by a ‘synchronised attack’ on all aspects of life in Yemen, one that is only possible with the complicity of the United States and United Kingdom.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2018.15...
So do most sanctions no matter how justified. The well being of those people are the responsibility of the Chinese government. It would be pretty easy to allow transparent media reports in the province if one wanted to show the world that there is nothing bad going on.
What the US (or anyone else) does in any other corner of the world is a separate topic and uninteresting in this context.
1. USA failed (again)
2. They committed world's largest genocide since WW2
3. For no good reason
This is an absolutely terrible outcome from PR point of view, so it's natural for US to try to prevent China from being successful in doing that. And pretending that temporarily imprisoning people is somehow more evil than killing them seems to be working, even here on HN.
Intel has fabs all over the world, including many in the US and some in China[1]. Whenever people talk about chip manufacturing they seem to only think about high-end cutting edge processes, when in fact the majority of quantity of chips produced are at non-cutting edge fabs that are spread all over the world and made by many companies that you haven't heard of, but also Intel.
However this was never about Intel manufacturing chips in Xianjing, it was about the long long tail of supply chain that goes into these ships from mines through to chemical supply companies up to industrial machinery supply and everything in between.
[1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
It's just Chinese politics, and a very large market. It was a huge mistake to use the term 'Xinjiang', one that other companies like Apple are careful to avoid.
Xinjiang has some silica mines [0] which may go into silicon production. Presumably, that is a critical material for Intel. Can it be sourced elsewhere? Is that the leverage the CCP has over Intel?
[0] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...
There are 2 choices, clear out everything and everyone associated with Intel out of PRC or comply.
I would also ignore or mildly chuckle at any government that thinks they can force me to have an opinion. Ignore for small market, mildly chuckle at big market.
If they want me to color an island on a map the same color as another landmass, or make a statement about my extended supply chain, I will do so and not pretend like it's any different just because some of my friends happen to respect one country slightly more all because they repeated a creepy chant every day as children in grade school.
There are two dimensions to that revised statement. If it had not been accompanied by an apology, then it could be taken as clarification of a genuine position.
As it stands, it is a contradictory mish mash of public relations that suggests there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang while saying generally Intel is against slave labour.
A clarification of the Intel position is in order. More to the point, Intel should be asked whether it deems Xinjiang to have slave concentration camps. What made it explicitly specify Xinjiang as an example of slave labour? Does removing Xinjiang reference mean that Intel now believes there are no slave concentration camps?
Hence, the clarification question about Intel's position is in earnest. But, it was just a succinct form of all these follow up questions. Sorry if that was unclear.
It is entirely possible that the US Congress was just too late on their grandstanding, yet their addition to the US law requires companies to say in/accurate things anyway.
So which is true? A Congress operating on outdated information just because they have a laundry list of fairly inconsequential laws to pass for their constituents who also have outdated information, or the Associated Press reporting up to date things with their own limitations on gathering information in Xinjiang.
I don't think it matters, same for Intel who just is in a place to respond.
Apologizing is the way to maintain standing in China, whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate. The Chinese constitution is being leveraged in a clear way that explains the behavior of everyone that has to make a strange-to-us apology. Specifically, if you read it, is the part about treating China as inseparable and not doing anything that would undermine that idea. It allows for broad interpretations on every action on every facet of life. Think about it like a super-interstate commerce clause, but maintaining status in that society is not that confusing to me.
The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. They're apathetic and respond to regulation. They responded, and then responded better. Everyone else now knows how to respond better, in order to avoid the PR issue.
If you think this fiasco requires them to make an opinion, for you, its not going to happen, and hopefully the above explains why.
You presumably want capable management as leadership of a corporation. The issue is whether Intel really needed to apologize.
Most chips are not manufactured in China. Foreign access to Chinese market is heavily restricted by CCP. There does not seem to be much to gain from apologizing for calling out slave concentration camps.
When considering this latest Xinjiang issue, as well as growing competition from Arm and the lack of a meaningful response from Intel, from a purely financial perspective, you can question the leadership of Intel.
If you are holding some Intel stock, it is probably time to revisit that position regardless of your views about corporations and ethics. Incompetence in public relations statements does not mean there is not general incompetence that can adversely affect the bottom line.
This also moves Intel's problem to their first shareholder letter. Basically they should have never said it if it didn't apply to them. Then they chose to apologize to maintain standing in China for who knows what reason.
Whats clear to me is that they realize it is basically inconsequential in the US and their other markets, while it is consequential in the China market. It's easy calculus. Sure some people want it to be consequential but nothing is going to happen, a few patriotic fellows are going to put them on the same mental list they have Lebron James on and you'll just hear about it at a party or in a bar a few times. That's the definition of inconsequential to me.
Yes, in the short term, there are consequences in China for Intel in terms of speaking out against slave concentration camps. Medium and long term, CCP will champion a national chip that will replace Intel. No amount of CCP praising or glossing over slave concentration camps will prevent this outcome for Intel.
So choosing to bend the knee for CCP will not net a gain in a longer time horizon. And with the rise of ARM, Intel is no longer the only chip on the block.
The Intel leadership may think things are inconsequential outside of China. But, this might push them to not consider alternative supply chains. With increasing trade wars, and the CCP looking to be very aggressive with trade policies as a foreign policy instrument, it is probably a good idea to divest from China supply chains.
Yet, Intel seems to really value their China supply chain. So it is reasonable to expect them to face the adverse consequences in the future. This can be very swift just like the sidelining of Jack Ma and AliBaba as well other Chinese tech giants.
In other words, just because you do not see the consequences now, it does not mean that there will not be heavy consequences later. You can have some basic human empathy for Uyghurs in slave concentration camps. Or you can evaluate the competence of Intel leadership in a cold manner. Either way, things seem to point to a sell order for Intel stock if you trade.
Supply chains are broad and it's not hard to have goods that pass through or originate in those regions even if all your parts are produced outside that and you have no direct partnerships there.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...
Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.
No, most institutions don't publish what their production capacity is. There is an article claiming that TSMC makes "92% of world's most sophisticated chips". Define most sophisticated. You can't just throw in revenue graphs and pretend they show anything of value, just because north america measures success solely in revenue and growth.
The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to substantiate your claims.
EDIT: Interesting to see people bring in random graphs from CNBC. Things that would not even be considered investment advice and present it as scientific evidence without any sort of due diligence on their. Sad that this is the kind of discourse that we have to have.
Things are not automatically true, valid, or contextual just because a big media corporation published them.
You are suggesting that the majority of low quality chips are manufactured outside of Taiwan. You have not defined your operational definitions for chip quality. You do not even have evidence on the quantity of chips.
In the absence of any data that would contradict this, we can reasonably assume revenue figures are a sensible proxy for quantity of chips.
Not an english speaker, so is Is "slave" correctly used here or is more like a "metaphor"?, In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill. Someone you keep in prison is called different and people kept in prison for political reasons have also different label, religions/race imprisonment might also have a different label.
"Slave labor" is a phrase used in English to express morally unacceptable working conditions where the workers have little to no power, as if they were slaves. It's commonly understood that those workers are not slaves in the legal sense.
It's atrocity propaganda exaggerate by useful idiots, even if out of genuine ignorance. The perpetuator of the original allegation, Zenz, used the label of "coerced labor", which goes through the euphemism treadmill to become forced labor by state department and now slave labor by the even less informed, because that's how propaganda snowballs.
Labour transfer programs in XJ, like elsewhere in PRC are employment programs. Yes there's pressure by recruiters to fill roster. Or it could be part of parole / work release programs. And there may be exploitation, but that's statistically inevitable for a social program that employs 10s of millions from every region of PRC over decades. Also consider these programs are typically well compensated compared to west due to economic disparity of developed and underdeveloped regions in PRC. And they're contracts with limited duration measured in months.
Analogue example is work program that recruits from rural town /rust belt with zero prospects and average income of 20k and paying them 45k to do manufacturing in a more well developed state for a year. Or apply that to work/release for an inmate incarcerated on low level drug charges. Some of these placements are exploitative because capitalism. In aggregate the programs alleviate poverty and promote development. That's the tier of exploitation being misconstrued as slave labour with the XJ propaganda push.
You are calling people idiots. Please be respectful. This is not in the spirit and guidelines of hacker news.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
>In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders.
Wikipedia mentioning a thing and citing the same propaganda does not make it so. Forced labor in laogai sure. Claiming XJ is a parallel laogai program when it's part of Rural Labour Transfer Program is misinformation. It's a paid work program with contracted terms. It's far removed from Laogai slave labour on the spectrum of slave-voluntary work. It's also one of the interventions that aligns with poverty / development strategies around the world versus actual cultural genocide / security state shenanigans going on. But it gets disproportionately maligned regardless.
E: over comment limit, it's not splitting hairs, it's accepted jargon/term. But apologies if it offends, the same way calling/insinuating POVs from PRC perspectives are wumao. Which you have been doing throughout this entire thread. As for sources, I've dropped the relevant subject matter for those interested to research on their own. The fact people can comfortably allege XJ is slave labour based on western sources and have no passing familiarity with context of transfer programs in PRC for poverty alleviation reflects how staggering gap in understanding is.
I'm still puzzled how/why some of these comments on here are down-voted; e.g. the comment pointing to wikipedia articles and asking for better discourse.
You still have not specified your sources of facts. So it does not seem to be worthwhile to engage in a genuine constructive conversation on your points.
We've seen this kind of thing many times before. Rule with an iron fist; if caught, deflect, lie, blame it on low-level leadership, corruption, or just statistics.
This is why the entire PoW/force labour accusation is entirely stupid.
Undereducated/underqualified Uyghurs with poor mandarin skills are frankly shit workers that's a massive hassle to exploit for economic efficiencies. There's a reason XPCC had a hard time developing XJ. On top of onerous security, movement, reeducation and other requirements, the amount of money poured into these labour transfer programs for Uyghur worker opportunities are much better spent on Han/other integrated minorities. It doesn't pass the most basic of smell test except by useful idiots who don't know the economics behind labour transfer programs, that again, affects 10s of millions from every province (45M across country in just 2000s). There are 100s of millions poor rural Chinese idle workers with prerequisite language skills that could fill theses roles easier and cheaper. XJ labour transfer is an expensive privilege - these programs are publicized by CCP loudly as wank for poverty alleviation, which is what they are considering the amount of subsidies required to rationalize giving XJ these programs in the first place. It takes extreme ignorance and brainwashing to misconstrue it as PoW slave camps for capitalism. Which is what you'll find on wikipedia citing propaganda sources that some people post like it's impartial while claiming anyone who disagrees is a wumao.
It varies a lot place to place and era to era what exactly is a slave and what isn't. Servants? Serfs? Even in a single era and a single place, as soon as one of the laws changes, things are not the same. Like in China, after the Unification, Chin Han called his administers what Westerners call "servants" or "slaves". I think this is a Western thing. Really, a better translation would be they were his "perkins," a Chilean word that basically means "someone who does what someone else says." But it doesn't have a definition, don't think in terms of definitions, think in terms of the relationship between words. That's the thing, the West is big on titles, I suppose the East is to a degree, but it's really meaningless. I wonder what they call Emperor Augustus in Chinese, what else it means. Ultimately, it's not what your title is, it's what you can do. Same with slaves, the word is just a word, the question is what will you have to do.
[1] The desert island version of a text is what you remember without being able to search for it online, or review your notes, nothing. Like if it were you and I, dear reader, on a desert island, the Bible is what we remember, that's it.
This is not what is meant by slave in this context. It is not a feeling. Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Xinjiang concentration camps count as modern slavery. Of course, China is not the only country concerned. But it does not mean that we should not point it out in China.
There are some comments that this should be described as something else - perhaps forced labor. Uyghurs in Xinjiang are deprived not only of their labor rights but also every other right from reproductive to cultural and everything in between.
Slaves essentially have no rights. Uyghurs essentially have no rights. So no, forced labor is not the right term.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
Traditionally if it's a prison the term is prison labor.
In a concentration camp you'd have forced labor. That is probably the language that would be used by groups actually working in this space.
Modern slavery is a fact [0]. China is not the only country concerned. But it does not mean that it does not apply to China or that we are forbidden from using the term when describing Xinjiang.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
There are also what are called "wage slaves" who can quit in theory but can't afford to.
Literally owning a person or having the right to kill them are kind of an extreme form of slavery. I think situations could be considered slavery even in situations where those don't apply.
There are some situations that are like slavery but they're kind of corner cases that society handles differently. Soldiers generally aren't allowed to quit in the middle of a war. H1B visa workers in the U.S. have more severe repercussions if they quit a job than ordinary workers; they can be kicked out of the country. I don't know what the legal status of forced labor in the U.S. prison system is, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those situations are effectively slavery. The people who employ undocumented workers can use the threat of reporting the workers to the authorities as leverage to get them to do what they say and not complain.
Don't ever forget that the part of the US constitution banning slavery has an explicit carve-out for this.
So there is, in fact, involuntary forced labor in the United States. It does also cause issues, as prison conscripted labor can undercut any semblance of normal rates for menial/unskilled labor.
That being said, the previous posters advising this does not negate the enormity of Chinese misconduct, or one's calling it out with similar domestic issues is not an effective or valid form of rhetorical dismissal. The drunk, as it were, is still right to call you out to hand over your keys after a few too many drinks.
"So essentially something that's considered perfectly normal in American prisons. Bit of a double standards, don't you think?" by trasz
in response to
"They are rounded up, regardless of their crimes. 1M+ people have been put in a camp where they are raped, beaten, medically experimented on, re-educated and indoctrinated to praise the CCP, shipped to factories around the country to work without pay, if they escape their families are punished. While Uyghur men are in these camps, Han Chinese men move in with the families left behind and treat the women and children as slaves. They literally buy them. It’s disgusting. It’s evil. See this: https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ohob7b/uyghur_wom..."
by: ei8htyfi5e
Essentially: try to distinguish between information about facts - which is largely true - and the narration being built around it.
This is the very definition of a straw man argument.
Very few people actually cares about what really do happen in Xinjiang, hopefully this relatively balanced reporting by Associated Press can shed some light:
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-ch...
Effective action may require collective action. But individually, most people care. Yet, collectively, they cannot seem to do anything meaningful. You are making a statement that is the definition of an ecological fallacy [0]
The article you pointed out is hardly balanced. The access of journalists is heavily restricted. Naturally, any information that comes out from a standard news outlet with government sanctioned offices like Associated Press will sound like government propaganda. CCP will not let AP have access to any information that counters the narrative of the propaganda.
For a different take on things, and an outlet that does journalism differently without official representation with CCP, have a look at this piece from VICE [1].
When they exist. We know they exist in the US (private prisons), but there are no reliable sources that confirm they still exist in China.
[0]https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/brea...
It is used to reduce the force of any criticism of CCP. Human rights are universal and know no national borders [1].
That being said, thanks for qualifying the often repeated statement in this thread about US prisons. Surely, more needs to be done. That does not mean we need to be silent about Xinjiang slave concentration camps.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893724 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893855
Whether you dismiss them is up to you, but the fact remains that numerous sources have reported on the existence of Chinese Concentration Camps.
Are you really suggesting keeping criminals who have had a trial and been found guilty by a jury of their peers is at all the same as a genocidal racial based campaign to remove an ethnic minority?
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
[2] - https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/02/asia/xinjiang-china-...
[3] - https://www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2021/04/chinas-disappe...
[4] - https://2017-2021.state.gov/ccpabuses
[5] - https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uyghurs-x...
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
(1) Provide correct information in a way that is more substantive and more respectful than the comment you're replying to;
and/or
(2) Chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and walk away (silently—not with a swipe).
As a side point, you'll usually end up at #2 anyhow, because #1 usually provokes more of the same, so after a certain number of iterations you'll find yourself in a tit-for-tat entanglement, which is greatly to be avoided.
The question is what is the optimal number of iterations. Probably it's 1. Maybe 2. Not 3. 4 is right out.
You constantly try to debase the conversation. Someone even reposted your comments to highlight how disingenuous your comments are [0]. Others have repeatedly pointed out how your comments have nothing to do with the current subject matter [1] or are simply regurgitating CCP talking points [2].
Clearly, engaging with your comments is not constructive. You are not interested in a genuine conversation. You attempt to deflate a potentially constructive conversation thread at every turn and trigger a flame war.
But it is a testament to Hacker News that by and large, the community has recognized your comments and efforts to derail the conversation for what they are.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29894558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893838 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29896092 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893832
Seems like some people insist on being loud even when it doesn't happen in China.
The entire mass internment propaganda drive was concocted on less media access to XJ than the what APNEWs article reporting of it's dismantling. China like most countries, are not US, they don't need to maintain forever prison industrial complexes. BTW the same western analysts that alleged mass internment in XJ also concluded that mass internment phase is over, with ~50k transferred to long term internment and masses back out with gen pop in an elevated security environment, but no longer interned. The persistent allegations now is that labour rural transfer programs that's been ongoing for 20+ years throughout the country is somehow coerced labour when there's no to weak evidence.
It would be very important to have some movement to avoid and boycott products made with slave labour from prisions, including the hundreds of thousands of slave labour from US prisions. This would be an important movement to end remaining slavery.
Maybe their position is that they have not established as a fact that there is slave labour in concentration camps in Xinjiang? Have you considered that as an alternative possibility?
From the article:
> The letter now reads that the company prohibits "any human trafficked or involuntary labour such as forced, debt bonded, prison, indentured, or slave labour throughout your extended supply chains."
That automatically covers Xinjiang is there is slave labour there, in additional to all other instances of slave labour, no? That sounds like a better wording than the original.
Here is a recent article [0] on rape and forced sterilization of Uyghur women.
[0] https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of...
"The year after she was arrested off the street, still in China, she was summoned to a police station and told that she needed to complete her training. "
if it's the same as prison rape in the US then what prison is she in? Further, prison rape is a crime.
"Her story is, tragically, not uncommon for members of the minority Uyghur religion, with Turkish roots, in President XI Jinping’s China. Since around 2016, they have been pulled off the street and sent to reeducation camps — where reports have surfaced about people being tortured, raped and even killed. They are sent there under the auspices of learning a trade and having their patriotism reinforced."
your attempt at equating this with the crime of prison rape in the US is reprehensible.
Even worse though, there are indications that this behavior is institutionally supported and desired in China. After all, if the local governors make rules to force non-Uyghur men to sleep in the bed of Uyghur women (even married ones) and offer forced sterilization otherwise, perhaps - just perhaps - you are peddling a false equivalence.
By the way, the latter meets the definition of genocide. In case you care.
I don't know how someone can compare these things with a straight face.
This is just whataboutism. You can care about both these issues, it's allowed.
You read correctly. That is exactly their position.
Not that they are fans of slave labour or of what is happening to the Uyghur people, per se. Just that in the scheme of things - as long the sales channels remain open and unimpeded - they consider it perfectly acceptable to do business in countries where genocide is happening right there, in plain view, for all to see. And will even go so far as to obsequiously apologize to the authorities in these countries for showing event the slightest hint of a suggestion that they felt otherwise.
Very much like back in ... certain countries at certain times that we're not supposed to make comparisons to.
No one was perfect at all times from day 1, but we should try to hold our partners, and by implication ourselves, to higher standards now that we have agreed to put the aforementioned actions at the extreme left side of the bad-to-good scale.
(I know you jest.)
The mere fact that Americans believe Chinese somehow cannot criticize their country's flaws - despite how obviously idiotic this belief would be - shows that.
(Or the belief that China is somehow trying to eradicate Winnie the Pooh, despite Chinese Disneyworld being a thing.)
Got it.
Why would they? Corporations have two choices now. Bend the knee and stay in the good graces of a government that controls access to the largest consumer market in the world, or take a moral stance and win meaningless social brownie points. There's not even a decision to be made.
But, let's presume that it is. CCP simply does not allow genuine access to sell goods or services. There is a reason why Google and Facebook and so many other dominant companies are practically non existent in China.
So the benefit of access to a supposed largest consumer market that is heavily restricted to foreigners seems largely inconsequential. Is this a wrong interpretation?
On the other hand, what Google and Facebook did can be done just as well by others.
Actually, maybe China is indeed able to produce decent Intel-compatible processors. Not sure.
As far as chips in particular, CCP is pushing hard to make chips locally [1]. So again, just a matter of time before Intel gets replaced in China.
Is the Intel leadership being incredibly short-sighted besides of course being devoid of ethical common sense?
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-an...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-o...
Look at e.g. Google. Yes, they've had some trouble sticking to their decision over the years, but they have so far. Corporations staying out do exist.
So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?
To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. And Intel is opening chip factories to boost production in the USA [0].
Why would Intel not take a position against Xinjiang slave concentration camps if presumably most of the supply chain does not depend on it? Would it be that much "trouble"? Or has some unrelated "trouble" been created for Intel that was not discussed in the article?
[0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...