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

181–190 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#181

Post by burkaman »

bravo22 wrote: post #78
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.

No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction. A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of…

> They do what the shareholders want

They haven't even asked what the shareholders want. They don't think they need to, because they believe that everyone will naturally share their belief that money is their highest priority.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#183

Post by abeppu »

> 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."

> “Intel’s cowardice is yet another predictable consequence of economic reliance on China,” Rubio said in a statement on Monday. “Instead of humiliating apologies and self-censorship, companies should move their supply chains to countries that do not use slave labour or commit genocide.”

So is it known whether any companies in Intel's supply chain uses US prison labor? Certainly Intel operates in a state which uses prison labor to fight its escalating wildfire issues, and is in that sense a beneficiary of prison labor.

I don't mean to create a the appearance of a false equivalence; these are different situations. But if the effect of the rewrite is to call out the broader classes of transgression rather than single out a specific instance, premised on the idea that human rights should in fact be universal and some standards must be consistently upheld everywhere ... then surely we must look at the ongoing practices in our own country.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#184

Post by dirtyid »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #161
dirtyid wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that why US also sanctions John Deer from selling tractors to XJ when XJ wanted to automate cotton harvesting because paying "slave" labours high wages was unprofitable. Almost like US wants to XJ to rely on manual labour to perpetuate coerced labour myth. Cause. Effect.

Quoted post unavailable.

There's media of Uyghurs working in XJ cotton fields as part of local cotton industry released by PRC media that got repurposed as coerced labour with zero evidence. It's like how videos of XJ transfer workers from their own douyin accounts got repurposed as "leaked" evidence of slave labour. Yes Zenz claims are basically myths, trying to portray extremely well known and studied rural labour transfer programs as coerced labour and connect any piece of mistreatment - of which there inevitably will be for a program this large - to fabricate myth of XJ coerced labour.

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#186

Post by ILMostro7 »

trasz wrote: post #167
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…

It's fascinating how one can actually believe Intel is manufacturing stuff using "slave labour in concentration camps" purely because his state propaganda tells them so.

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#187

Post by alkonaut »

jchook wrote: post #94
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…

It’s economic warfare against a destabilized region that only recently quelled constant terrorism. 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.

Every country and company on the planet should of course assume the worst - until free and independent media is free to report on it.

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#188

Post by network2592 »

trasz wrote: post #171
network2592 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. Do not confuse lack of action with lack of caring. 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…

>Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#189

Post by jimbob45 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #178
mmaunder wrote: post #166

What I find most dangerous about the United States bending to the will of China via their corporations is that it's affecting our story telling. The stories we tell define how we remember history, who our heroes are and what we think is worth fighting for. In 2012 the script of Red Dawn (a remake) was changed so that it was the North Koreans invading the US rather than the Chinese. This was done to avoid provoking th…

Another example amongst many: Musk is really 'edgy' on Twitter. He won't say shit about china though. He has a car plant there.

That's fine but China's ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. "If they're not talking about you to your face, they're talking twice as much behind your back". No one is vacationing to China, no one is immigrating to China, no one willingly invests in China when alternatives are present. They're only going to prosper until they can no longer bully the world around economically and then they'll be post-Soviet Russia 2.0.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#190

Post by defaultprimate »

999900000999 wrote: post #63
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.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is some Chinese propaganda-esque whataboutism. It's one of the oldest propaganda plays in the book.

https://globalvoices.org/2021/08/19/the-chinese-government-d...

Post reply on HN