Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#121

Post by javajosh »

em500 wrote: post #90
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…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? 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,…

Intel has no motive to falsely allege forced labor use in China. In fact, Intel has every motive to ignore abuses so as not to alienate the CCP. So, your implication that Intel jumped the gun and made false accusations without proof lacks motive, at the very least.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#122

Post by photochemsyn »

halpert wrote: post #107
photochemsyn wrote: post #103

[flagged]

[flagged]

Well, better never take an Uber ride again either as Saudi Arabia dumped $5 billion into that corporation, didn't it? I see way too many people displaying hypocritical selective outrage over such issues. Starvation and genocide in Yemen is okay with such people, apparently, it's only if China is involved that they get upset? Come on.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#123

Post by vanusa »

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…

So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#124

Post by melonbar »

loceng wrote: post #100
em500 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? 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,…

I can believe the Earth is flat if I avoid the evidence and don't care about congruence - especially if financially motivated.

I could not agree with you more, it amazes me the mental gymnastics some will go through in the quest to convince themselves otherwise of something wholly obvious. Sure, you could take the CCP’s word for it (because their behavior is not at all suspicious and they have a great track record when it comes to human rights). And sure, to some that might hold a lot of weight. However, even if rumored, don’t you want to be the one that doesn’t support genocide regardless?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#125

Post by [deleted] »

em500 wrote: post #90
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…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? 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,…

[deleted]

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#126

Post by vmception »

rastapasta42 wrote: post #93
nimbius wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is excellent news, as some US states employ prison labor heavily in their manufacturing and agriculture sectors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

If I was in prison, I would rather work. What's the point of sitting around and decaying? I bet if you gave most prisoners a choice, they would rather work too.

which now has nothing to do with Intel or its extended supply chain.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#127

Post by rjzzleep »

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…

Just yesterday someone commented on the google's union efforts with the following:

> 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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29876934

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#128

Post by michaelt »

FredPret wrote: post #73
burkaman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.

Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.

Shareholders haven't resolved that Intel must or must not use slave labour.

And a court isn't going to second-guess the management if they judge the cost savings of using slave labour don't outweigh the potential for reputational damage.

As such, management are free to act either way.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#130

Post by thiagoharry »

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…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?

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.

Post reply on HN