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

351–360 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#351

Post by vmception »

network2592 wrote: post #347
vmception wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you skipped their revised statement. 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 fr…

Intel apologized specifically for mentioning Xinjiang. This implies that there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang. Otherwise, there would be no need to apologize. 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…

Associated Press says those camps are closed and that was back in October.

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 A Congress operating on outdated information just because they have a laundry list of fairly inconsequential laws to pass for their constituents who also have outdated information, or the Associated Press reporting up to date things with their own limitations on gathering information in Xinjiang.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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#352

Post by network2592 »

dirtyid wrote: post #344
simion314 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>slave labour in concentration camps 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.

>correctly used here 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 PR…

Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Wikipedia specifically mentions Xinjiang. Wu Mao also has an entry on wikipedia [1].

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

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893724

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#353

Post by Paradigma11 »

radmuzom wrote: post #223
tlear wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silica is not an issue. Intel executives getting kidnapped(err arrested for illegal blah blah), local managers disappearing, sudden "corruption" investigations etc. There are 2 choices, clear out everything and everyone associated with Intel out of PRC or comply.

Funny how China doing something are always in the future tense. Whereas the ones who have committed the atrocity of actually illegally detaining an executive by putting pressure on a friendly country is the USA.

Illegal by violating what laws?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#354

Post by network2592 »

trasz wrote: post #348
chasd00 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is such a disingenuous malevolent comment that i want to preserve it and the context in case you get downvoted off the screen. "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…

So your claim is that prisoners in USA have never been "raped, beaten, medically experimented on, re-educated and indoctrinated to praise the CCP, shipped to factories around the country to work without pay"? (I've skipped the obviously absurd part, although if you count the slavery...) Essentially: try to distinguish between information about facts - which is largely true - and the narration being built around it.

Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Xinjiang is specifically mentioned. Wu Mao is also a fact [1]. Both sources are wikipedia. What is your preferred source of facts?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_slavery

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893724

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#355

Post by dirtyid »

network2592 wrote: post #352
dirtyid wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>correctly used here 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 PR…

Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Wikipedia specifically mentions Xinjiang. Wu Mao also has an entry on wikipedia [1]. 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 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893724

Not idiots, "useful idiots" who can be and are frequently intelligent. It's not meant to be disrespectful, but as a descriptor like WuMao. Who BTW only operates domestically, within PRC and not abroad. And even then WuMaos don't write analysis, they distract with platitudes.

>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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#356

Post by freemint »

nieksand wrote: post #56
freemint wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read: "We need to divest our manufacturing from China." I parse it as: "We need war with China". Because soldiers don't cross borders goods cross.

Weird. There were goods crossing between the Ukraine and Russia, but that didn't stop soldiers from crossing the border and occupying Crimea. Perhaps it was the exception that proves the rule.

This phrase was not meant to be taken literally and more supposed to be understood as "if peoples do engage in trading that makes wars between those nation states way less likely."

It was a cute phrase but I see how it might lead to missunderstandings. Thanks for pointing that out. As for whether that more elaborate position applies to the Russian-Ukranian situation. Yes it does

The Russians have not declared war on Ukraine. They are engaging in a purely illegal invasion. Ukraine has not declared war on Russia and has not attempt any occupation of Russian territory.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#357

Post by network2592 »

vmception wrote: post #351
network2592 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel apologized specifically for mentioning Xinjiang. This implies that there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang. Otherwise, there would be no need to apologize. 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…

Associated Press says those camps are closed and that was back in October. 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…

> The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do.

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#358

Post by FredPret »

Loughla wrote: post #146
michaelt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations, because many don't even know they are shareholders . Think about Joe Blow from the US. He has a managed 401k or some such investment. He has no idea the 'low-risk' fund offered through Edward Jones invests in Intel or Google or whoever. He has no idea he plays a part in this.

Very true. Public shareholding is like a parallel democracy, where almost none of the voters are paticipating or voting.

I strongly believe we need more voter participation here.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#359

Post by network2592 »

dirtyid wrote: post #355
network2592 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Wikipedia specifically mentions Xinjiang. Wu Mao also has an entry on wikipedia [1]. 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 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893724

Not idiots, "useful idiots" who can be and are frequently intelligent. It's not meant to be disrespectful, but as a descriptor like WuMao. Who BTW only operates domestically, within PRC and not abroad. And even then WuMaos don't write analysis, they distract with platitudes. >In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the c…

Idiots or useful idiots. You are splitting hairs. Do not call people idiots period. You should apologize for that.

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#360

Post by vmception »

network2592 wrote: post #357
vmception wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Associated Press says those camps are closed and that was back in October. 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…

> The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. 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. W…

That's an interesting point, I think it comes down to nobody knowing what contractors in their extended supply chain do.

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.

Post reply on HN