4 ms·

There are "Criticism of" articles for a lot of tech companies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o

There are "Criticism of" articles for a lot of tech companies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace (surely an important page in this day and age) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google And the whopper is this: there is an entire category devoted to pages criticizing Google: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google And let's not forget the funnest Wikipedia "Criticism of" page: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Trump has openly stated that he's using Huawei as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/.... The "evidence" against Huawei always seems to be two cases that it settled 15+ years ago, plus the "Tappy" robot a few years back. They also may have indirectly done business with Iran, but they're a Chinese company, so doing business with Iran was legal under the laws of their country.

drawnwren 7y ago
Your response to a list of evidence was to attack lists of evidence and then provide your own straw man list of evidence to then argue against?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Respond to the strongest version of the argument, not a straw man. My meaning was obvious. The above commenter pointed to the existence of a "very long Wikipedia page" criticizing Huawei as evidence that Huawei is a "bad actor." These sorts of "Criticism of" pages exist for many companies. Many of those pages are far more extensive than the page for Huawei. Are all those companies also "bad actors"? The existence of such a page in itself means nothing. If you actually look at the "Criticism of Huawei" page, it contains no evidence that Huawei has installed backdoors in its equipment. There are the accusations of the US government, and various vulnerabilities that have been discovered over time (and patched), but vulnerabilities and backdoors are different things. Then there are the various IP disputes. Tell me: which major tech company has not had multiple IP disputes over the past 20 years? The disputes that Huawei has been involved in are pretty minor, and the largest ones were 15+ years ago. We're in the middle of a moral panic, in which suddenly, were being bombarded by messages that Huawei and China are the worst things in the history of the planet. Huawei is a "bad actor," whatever that's supposed to mean. Google stole Oracle's copyrighted Java API? Samsung violated Apple's design patents and has to pay half a billion dollars? Small potatoes. But Huawei copied Cisco's implementation of strcmp 15 years ago? Bad actor!

drawnwren 7y ago

Your response to a list of evidence was to attack lists of evidence and then provide your own straw man list of evidence to then argue against?

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Respond to the strongest version of the argument, not a straw man. My meaning was obvious. The above commenter pointed to the existence of a "very long Wikipedia page" criticizing Huawei as evidence that Huawei is a "bad actor." These sorts of "Criticism of" pages exist for many companies. Many of those pages are far more extensive than the page for Huawei. Are all those companies also "bad actors"? The existence of such a page in itself means nothing. If you actually look at the "Criticism of Huawei" page, it contains no evidence that Huawei has installed backdoors in its equipment. There are the accusations of the US government, and various vulnerabilities that have been discovered over time (and patched), but vulnerabilities and backdoors are different things. Then there are the various IP disputes. Tell me: which major tech company has not had multiple IP disputes over the past 20 years? The disputes that Huawei has been involved in are pretty minor, and the largest ones were 15+ years ago. We're in the middle of a moral panic, in which suddenly, were being bombarded by messages that Huawei and China are the worst things in the history of the planet. Huawei is a "bad actor," whatever that's supposed to mean. Google stole Oracle's copyrighted Java API? Samsung violated Apple's design patents and has to pay half a billion dollars? Small potatoes. But Huawei copied Cisco's implementation of strcmp 15 years ago? Bad actor!