4 ms·
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/20
by 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 agoFor 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 agoWe 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?