4 ms·

To me, it looks like that site was not created by ARM, no one was able to prove ARM created it, and it could be just a scam to attack ARM's public image. That's

by antpls 8y ago

To me, it looks like that site was not created by ARM, no one was able to prove ARM created it, and it could be just a scam to attack ARM's public image. That's bad journalism right there.

philpem 8y ago
Fair point... except ARM were kind enough to leave the main infographic on their own website as of two minutes ago. https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infographic.png https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr... Probably fair to assume it's sanctioned by ARM if it's on arm.com. Unless they play the "we were hacked" card.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  Good find. Also, the article does say it talked to at least one person at ARM. It would require that either Chris Williams made stuff up and wasn't caught by anyone else at The Register (he is Editor-In-Chief, but I hope someone still checks his work), or the ARM spokesperson and anyone else Williams talked to was lying. "Arm told us it had hoped its anti-RISC-V site would kickstart a discussion around architectures, rather than come off as a smear attack. In any case, on Tuesday, it took the site offline by killing its DNS. “Our intention in creating a webpage to offer key considerations around commercial RISC-V based products was to inform a lively industry debate," an Arm spokesperson told The Register."
  - antpls 8y ago
    Honestly, for someone who doesn't know TheRegister, even that article looks like a scam to me. The linked image stored on the ARM server from the comment above is a way stronger proof imho. Edit : The picture could have still been hijacked from its initial purpose by a malicious actor. Maybe ARM didn't planned to use that picture the same way it was presented on the RISC related domain.
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      This is the tech equivalent of “CNN is making things up wholesale” - The Register is a well-known, mostly reliable source of news. It might occasionally get things wrong/have biases/etc but they’re not about to start making up sources.
      - antpls 8y ago
        Well, I don't trust CNN either so it's actually a good comparison. It seems "well-known" sources of news are using their comfortable position to accept a lower quality of their journalism. I'm not saying their are bad intended, but they took the choice of posting often (with possibly unverified information) rather than posting rigorously checked facts, and cross checked with different sources. I feel like I have to do myself their work of cross verifying everything they post...
        vertex-four 8y ago
        CNN doesn’t make up sources. The Register doesn’t either. The Register has a source at ARM who states that the website was theirs. What, exactly, are you suggesting happened?
        antpls 8y ago
        I don't suggest anything, I'm only saying we trust way too much CNN and journalists in general who reinforce our initial believes.
        vertex-four 8y ago
        That statement could be made about literally any article linked from Hacker News, in addition to anything on the rest of the internet - why did you decide to make it on this one?
        antpls 8y ago
- antpls 8y ago
  Good finding. It returns a 404 for me right now, here's is the webarchive version : https://web.archive.org/web/20180710180052/https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infographic.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180710180052/https://www.arm.c...
mtgx 8y ago
Or maybe they just wanted to "test the waters" without officially claiming it's theirs.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
The website had and ARM logo and a copyright note: "Copyright © 1995-2018 Arm Limited (or its affiliates). All rights reserved." http://web.archive.org/web/20180710112443/https://riscv-basics.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180710112443/https://riscv-basi... Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website.
- antpls 8y ago
  > The website had and ARM logo and a copyright note: I can copy paste that in 5 minutes to any website I own. > Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website. Maybe it doesn't worth worrying about a scam that only 10 nerds on internet care about
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    For me, the riscv-basics website came up as a paid link on Google. It did so for others as well. Somebody was spending real money to make it do so. Unlikely for a false flag.
    - antpls 8y ago
      > Somebody was spending real money to make it do so. Unlikely for a false flag That doesn't tell you anything about who paid for that sponsored content.
      - TomVDB 8y ago
        We have a website that has the ARM logo and professional graphics. We have the main graphic of the site that was hosted on arm.com. We have paid ads. We have an article that claims that ARM apologizes for website which coincides with the website being taken down. How much circumstantial evidence do you need?

by antpls 8y ago

To me, it looks like that site was not created by ARM, no one was able to prove ARM created it, and it could be just a scam to attack ARM's public image. That's bad journalism right there.

philpem 8y ago

Fair point... except ARM were kind enough to leave the main infographic on their own website as of two minutes ago. https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infographic.png https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr... Probably fair to assume it's sanctioned by ARM if it's on arm.com. Unless they play the "we were hacked" card.

waterhouse 8y ago
Good find. Also, the article does say it talked to at least one person at ARM. It would require that either Chris Williams made stuff up and wasn't caught by anyone else at The Register (he is Editor-In-Chief, but I hope someone still checks his work), or the ARM spokesperson and anyone else Williams talked to was lying. "Arm told us it had hoped its anti-RISC-V site would kickstart a discussion around architectures, rather than come off as a smear attack. In any case, on Tuesday, it took the site offline by killing its DNS. “Our intention in creating a webpage to offer key considerations around commercial RISC-V based products was to inform a lively industry debate," an Arm spokesperson told The Register."
- antpls 8y ago
  Honestly, for someone who doesn't know TheRegister, even that article looks like a scam to me. The linked image stored on the ARM server from the comment above is a way stronger proof imho. Edit : The picture could have still been hijacked from its initial purpose by a malicious actor. Maybe ARM didn't planned to use that picture the same way it was presented on the RISC related domain.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    This is the tech equivalent of “CNN is making things up wholesale” - The Register is a well-known, mostly reliable source of news. It might occasionally get things wrong/have biases/etc but they’re not about to start making up sources.
    - antpls 8y ago
      Well, I don't trust CNN either so it's actually a good comparison. It seems "well-known" sources of news are using their comfortable position to accept a lower quality of their journalism. I'm not saying their are bad intended, but they took the choice of posting often (with possibly unverified information) rather than posting rigorously checked facts, and cross checked with different sources. I feel like I have to do myself their work of cross verifying everything they post...
      - vertex-four 8y ago
        CNN doesn’t make up sources. The Register doesn’t either. The Register has a source at ARM who states that the website was theirs. What, exactly, are you suggesting happened?
        antpls 8y ago
        I don't suggest anything, I'm only saying we trust way too much CNN and journalists in general who reinforce our initial believes.
        vertex-four 8y ago
        That statement could be made about literally any article linked from Hacker News, in addition to anything on the rest of the internet - why did you decide to make it on this one?
        antpls 8y ago
antpls 8y ago
Good finding. It returns a 404 for me right now, here's is the webarchive version : https://web.archive.org/web/20180710180052/https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infographic.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180710180052/https://www.arm.c...

mtgx 8y ago

Or maybe they just wanted to "test the waters" without officially claiming it's theirs.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

The website had and ARM logo and a copyright note: "Copyright © 1995-2018 Arm Limited (or its affiliates). All rights reserved." http://web.archive.org/web/20180710112443/https://riscv-basics.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180710112443/https://riscv-basi... Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website.

antpls 8y ago
> The website had and ARM logo and a copyright note: I can copy paste that in 5 minutes to any website I own. > Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website. Maybe it doesn't worth worrying about a scam that only 10 nerds on internet care about
- TomVDB 8y ago
  For me, the riscv-basics website came up as a paid link on Google. It did so for others as well. Somebody was spending real money to make it do so. Unlikely for a false flag.
  - antpls 8y ago
    > Somebody was spending real money to make it do so. Unlikely for a false flag That doesn't tell you anything about who paid for that sponsored content.
    - TomVDB 8y ago
      We have a website that has the ARM logo and professional graphics. We have the main graphic of the site that was hosted on arm.com. We have paid ads. We have an article that claims that ARM apologizes for website which coincides with the website being taken down. How much circumstantial evidence do you need?