Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#61

Post by ramesh31 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #40

jonnycomputer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.

> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.

>I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that?

Diffusion of liability. It's basically the whole point of a corporation. If you break evil acts down into small unrecognizable chunks that can be turned into a job description and hired for, you're able to run what would otherwise be a detestable business to any single individual person.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#62

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

system16 wrote: post #5

Say what you want about China, but their ability to weaponize capitalism and make multi-billion dollar companies cower and self-censor in ways they would never do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".

[deleted]

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#63

Post by 999900000999 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

axiosgunnar wrote: post #2

Name and shame. We need to divest our manufacturing from China. Perhaps by exposing such practices and nagging hypocrytical companies we can make divestment happen sooner? Twitter mobs could be used for good once.

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#64

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #40

jonnycomputer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.

> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.

Corporations are made up of a large number of cross-pressured people. It’s not even a purely economic problem for Intel - if they take a hard line on Xinjiang, how many of their Chinese staff will go to prison?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#65

Post by dclowd9901 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

me_me_me wrote: post #46

q3k wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to divest our manufacturing from China. Not gonna happen until you get rid of consumerism. People want to buy cheap shit, it gives their lives meaning.

Its not (just) that anymore, china is the new market. The new and huge revenue stream. You need to play by chinese rules or they close their market to you. Big corporations are now addicted to this opium and cant simply go back to not selling to chinese markets.

With the expectation from American companies to always be growing, it’s inevitable for them to end up kowtowing to the Chinese market, even at the expense of all other markets.

I would like to see recognition from American shareholders that not only is expanding to China bad for the product but it also undermines our cultural values vis a vis problematic manufacturing.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#66

Post by network2592 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

ramesh31 wrote: post #53

network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. 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…

>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"? 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. Ther…

CCP may arguably control the world's largest consumer market. That is debatable when considering the European Union as a single market or even India. Considering either consumption level or sheer number of consumers, it is not entirely clear that China is the world's largest consumer market.

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?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#67

Post by 323 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

axiosgunnar wrote: post #2

Name and shame. We need to divest our manufacturing from China. Perhaps by exposing such practices and nagging hypocrytical companies we can make divestment happen sooner? Twitter mobs could be used for good once.

> Twitter mobs could be used for good once.

But you need your iPhone 13 Max (I know, Apple, not Intel) to virtue signal on Twitter though. It's much easier to just complain about Western colonialism or something.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#68

Post by 323 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #14

> 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." Designed by Intel in California™

> Designed by Intel in California™

Soon even that will be outsourced to China. It will be replaced by:

Financed by Intel in California™ or Marketed by Intel in California™

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#69

Post by gspr » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

ramesh31 wrote: post #61

gspr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.

>I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Diffusion of liability. It's basically the whole point of a corporation. If you break evil acts down into small unrecognizable chunks that can be turned into a job description and hired for, you're able to run what would otherwise be a detestable business to any single individual person.

Sure. But the buck stops with the corporation's board, or with the CEO that they appoint.

And corporations aren't free to break the law, even though that diffusion of liability should be at play in that case, too.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#70

Post by mlindner » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. 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…

> To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan.

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...