27 ms·

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

294 points by 737min 5y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
This honestly doesn't matter all that much taken by itself but isn't that the point? Small changes like this over decades makes a real difference. "Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence" - Ovid
ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- network2592 5y ago
  - trasz 5y ago
    “Astroturfing” happens every time someone posts propaganda pretending it’s facts. As for grammar: you do realize there’s quite a few people living outside the US, besides China? :-D
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > From looking at the downvotes on this post, I believe they are on this thread downvoting posts that no moral people should have business downvoting. Just be aware. voicing an opinion that doesn’t get upvotes doesn’t mean it isn’t agreed with. If someone looks at this OP, you see most of the flagged and dead posts are from the few people who question the continual US anti-China (anti-Iran, anti-Cuba, anti-Venezuela, anti-Palestinian...) rhetoric. So it is pretty much all posts raging about China, with the few posts questioning this killed off, but the paranoia is about "infiltration" against the US China bashing, when anyone can just look at this whole post and see the opposite is true. The US military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about sucks away my taxes to do evil on other lands, its propaganda organs saying US workers and taxpayers like me questioning its parasitism and belligerence is alien. It's amusing how the US's coup de grace in Afghanistan was a massacre of innocent Afghans, and the corporate press and pundits tear their shirts we're still not there killing Afghans, yet their heart bleeds for China dealing with a terrorism problem within China. The US can go around the world and bomb whoever it wants, but China is not allowed to deal with a terrorism problem within its own borders.
  - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - amerikkkan 5y ago
- president 5y ago
  The problem is that it is not just paid Wu Maos partaking in mindless burying of China criticism. Often times, you'll get hyper nationalist Chinese people who just want to help their homeland and they're not getting paid to astroturf. It's not limited to the Chinese - I have seen the same pattern for posts that are critical of India/Indians in engineering boards. I believe that trust is largely gone on large forums due to astroturfing and bots.
- amerikkkan 5y ago
synergy20 5y ago
Money talks. Even though it's a seller's market, what a shame.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
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.
- freemint 5y ago
  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.
  - nieksand 5y ago
    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.
    - freemint 5y ago
      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.
- Invictus0 5y ago
  Divestment will be a years long process, and it will only happen if we publish a schedule of annually increasing tariffs across all Chinese imports.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    Perhaps it wasn't such a stupid idea after all....
pfortuny 5y ago
So they are hiding important information from their shareholders? And they think that is a good thing... Ah, no. They think that will give them more money. Nothing to do with goodness.
causality0 5y ago
We were happy to embrace the philosophy of sociopathic capitalist companies when it meant getting our cheap electronics built in factories with suicide nets. Now that it means giant companies care more about China's opinion than ours we want to posture about loyalty and moral responsibility.
- jevoten 5y ago
  I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. But it took the economist and investor class the longest to realize the drawbacks that others knew instinctively. And now you use "we" to describe their opinion and lobbying?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. Maybe not quite "happy to embrace" people of a certain political persuasion were doing a heck of a lot to not get in the way of it because eliminating those jobs reduced the wealth of people who opposed them and made those people more receptive to what they were peddling.
    - tharne 5y ago
      To be fair, this was a bipartisan lie we were all sold in the 1990's. Democrats and Republicans alike convinced Americans that globalization would result in everyone having better jobs in what is now known as the "creative class". As a country we bought this hook, line, and sinker and are still paying the price, and likely will be for quite some time.
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    Does every retired boomer living quite well off their 401K retirement plan represent a member of 'the investor class'? How many would be willing to accept a cutback in dividend payouts if it meant corporations would instead invest that money in rebuilding manufacturing in the United States?
system16 5y ago
Say what you want about China, but their ability to weaponize capitalism and make multi-billion dollar companies cower and self-censor in ways they would never do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".
- bravo22 5y ago
  Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing what it is supposed to do -- operate in accordance with wishes of the shareholders.
  - 4ggr0 5y ago
    I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    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.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.
      - michaelt 5y ago
        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.
tomrod 5y ago
Cowards.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.
  - gspr 5y ago
    > Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      Yes.
    - url00 5y ago
      This exactly. We can't give up trying to get corps to show some moral fortitude. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.
    - ramesh31 5y ago
      >I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Diffusion of liability. It's basically the whole point of a corporation. If you break evil acts down into small unrecognizable chunks that can be turned into a job description and hired for, you're able to run what would otherwise be a detestable business to any single individual person.
      - gspr 5y ago
        Sure. But the buck stops with the corporation's board, or with the CEO that they appoint. And corporations aren't free to break the law, even though that diffusion of liability should be at play in that case, too.
vmception 5y ago
The revised letter is a good instruction manual on how to maintain standing in both societies, they just should have thought of it initially. Thanks for taking the L, InteL.
vmception 5y ago
> 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." Designed by Intel in California™
- nimbius 5y ago
  this is excellent news, as some US states employ prison labor heavily in their manufacturing and agriculture sectors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States#Modern_prison_labor_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...
  - rastapasta42 5y ago
    If I was in prison, I would rather work. What's the point of sitting around and decaying? I bet if you gave most prisoners a choice, they would rather work too.
    - vmception 5y ago
      which now has nothing to do with Intel or its extended supply chain.
  - okbutstill9 5y ago
- echelon 5y ago
  Companies receiving US government subsidies should manufacture finished goods domestically (or with its allies where not otherwise possible). Especially companies of strategic national interest. Intel wants a multi-billion dollar grant/bailout from Uncle Sam. Make onshoring of manufacturing a condition of receiving such funds. Furthermore, I posted a tax advantage system in a sibling thread that would help encourage other companies to do the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892031 Remove taxes from positive externalities. Attach conditions to bailouts/grants. Use money to force the outcomes you want.
network2592 5y ago
> 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 primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. And Intel is opening chip factories to boost production in the USA [0]. Why would Intel not take a position against Xinjiang slave concentration camps if presumably most of the supply chain does not depend on it? Would it be that much "trouble"? Or has some unrelated "trouble" been created for Intel that was not discussed in the article? [0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-breaks-ground-two-new-leading-edge-chip-factories-arizona.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...
- thiagoharry 5y ago
  > So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? It would be very important to have some movement to avoid and boycott products made with slave labour from prisions, including the hundreds of thousands of slave labour from US prisions. This would be an important movement to end remaining slavery.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- nwatson 5y ago
  One company, two truths.
- tgtweak 5y ago
  It is for it's suppliers and partners. Examples of this would be Intel supplying chips to Lenovo, who are based in Beijing and who may have some components sources from that region, or Intel's fabs sourcing Silicon or other manufacturing materials (or their suppliers) from that region. Supply chains are broad and it's not hard to have goods that pass through or originate in those regions even if all your parts are produced outside that and you have no direct partnerships there.
temptemptemp111 5y ago
photochemsyn 5y ago
[flagged]
- halpert 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    Well, better never take an Uber ride again either as Saudi Arabia dumped $5 billion into that corporation, didn't it? I see way too many people displaying hypocritical selective outrage over such issues. Starvation and genocide in Yemen is okay with such people, apparently, it's only if China is involved that they get upset? Come on.
    - halpert 5y ago
      I don’t really consider using the services of a public company with thousands of different investors the same thing as directly purchasing the fruits of slave labor. If Uber drivers were slaves themselves, then that would be more comparable to me.
    - EdSharkey 5y ago
      I am only upset at Han scoundrels in China right now, deal with it. The world is broken, we are in triage mode, and your accusations of hypocrisy have no sting. Bravo Intel for opposing slavery. You are doing more right than wrong these days and I love you for it.
- froh 5y ago
  As a european, I'm amazed and deeply irritated that forced labor to this day is part of the US prison system: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263?t=1641920153339 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263?t=1641920153339 And I'm also irritated that in the US many convicts (not just inmates) lose their right to vote, a human right that in Europe you'd only lose for direct attack to the democracy (like the Jan 6 mob, or voting fraud, and even then only for a limited period of time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#Europe
analyst74 5y ago
Isn't the new wording more morally consistent? It still means they are against slave labor, including those in Xinjiang, but not blindly banning anything from the region.
- dandare 5y ago
  To me it sounds less morally consistent. It says they are against slavery on the paper but will not do anything concrete to avoid profiting from slave labour in practice.
tharne 5y ago
I don't know why people keep expressing surprise at things like this. Contrary to what the U.S. Supreme Court would have you believe, corporations are not people and do not have morals or values. They are organizations that seek to maximize profit and grow. Any values a corporation projects are merely reflections of whatever the dominant moral force is in a given time and place. American corporations in the U.S. in 2022 project values of wokeness because the woke left is presently the dominant cultural force in the U.S. In 1950's America, the dominant cultural force was cultural conservatism and patriotism so naturally corporations projected conservative and patriotic values. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that a large corporation operating in China in 2022 will reflect the values of the CCP. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but expecting a corporation to have meaningful morals in the same way a human does is like expecting your dog to do the dishes. Based on what they are, they're simply not capable of the task.
- duped 5y ago
  > corporations are not people and do not have morals or values. They are organizations that seek to maximize profit and grow. They are however made up of people who make moral decisions based on their values, including in their businesses. Plenty of corporations choose to do or not do things based on their ethics and morals. And acting as an agent of a corporation doesn't free you from moral peril when making those decisions. I don't expect Intel the Corporation to have values, but I do expect the people within Intel who choose where they manufacture or purchase manufactured goods to have qualms about using slave labor for it, supporting a genocide in doing so.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >I don't expect Intel the Corporation to have values, but I do expect the people within Intel who choose where they manufacture or purchase manufactured goods to have qualms about using slave labor for it, supporting a genocide in doing so. Human behavior is remarkably different depending on whether or not I'm the sole person on stage responsible for an action or whether I'm a single anonymous vote.
    - 5y ago
amerikkkan 5y ago
mmaunder 5y ago
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 the ire of the Chinese market, a critically important market for our film industry, much like it's a critically important market for Intel. This trend has continued and worsened. You'll notice there are no courageous well known film makers tackling the humanitarian abuses in China. It's a career killer. And yet the most popular film in China in 2021 is The Battle at Lake Changjin which depicts the Chinese fighting American soldiers and winning. It's also the highest grossing film in Chinese history and the second highest grossing film world-wide in 2021. It's also the highest grossing non-english film of 2021. America has lost the narrative and the Chinese have gained it without question. Our free market economy and desire for continued access to the Chinese market is destroying our freedom of expression and has left what used to be a community of courageous filmmakers shining light in important issues cowering in a corner.
- pradn 5y ago
  The Battle at Lake Changjin was the first time a non-Hollywood film was the highest grossing film worldwide since like the 1910s or 1920s. (We don't have good records before then, when a bunch of French silents were popular.)
- baq 5y ago
  the job of the regulator is to make the marketplace fair. why not tax income from china for movies made in us so that incentives aren't as twisted?
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's how effective their global propaganda, cultural warfare, and data harvesting techniques are. You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Even better because they gave you this information voluntarily
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
Interesting. China seems to tick all the boxes from human rights to climate change. How comes it's not cancelled by the Twitter mob yet?
- ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
  They don’t have Twitter there, the GFW blocks it.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    They have Twitter here though.
    - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
      How are you going to cancel someone if they already aren't listening to you? Gunna place thousands of calls to their employer? Mail them awful things in the mail? Un follow them? I know you were joking but come on. There's no way to cancel something external. In order to cancel them, they need to buy into your system and have shame, something the CCP does not have.
      - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        The same way any cancellation works: refuse to buy stuff made in China. Boycott Amazon until it stops selling Chinese stuff. Don't watch Chinese movies. And so on. The subject of the cancellation doesn't have to use Twitter. The consumers should - which is perfectly the case here.
- president 5y ago
  They have convinced [1] people that it is racist to criticize their nation [1] https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003746 https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003746
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
abeppu 5y ago
> 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.
- design-material 5y ago
  Um... no. That logic makes no sense
  - abeppu 5y ago
    Care to expand on that? The premise of this article is that Intel was intimidated out of mentioning Xinjiang and instead opted to list categories of practices to be excluded from its supply chain. Why is it not appropriate to discuss the ways Intel and other US companies are already beneficiaries of some of those practices?
reaperducer 5y ago
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, if it wasn't for federal government regulation, Intel would be OK with slave labor. What kind of sick people are running things at Intel?
jude- 5y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chasd00 5y ago
  seconded
- amerikkkan 5y ago
- network2592 5y ago
  +1 Genuinely wanted to have a conversation about the intricacies of the Intel supply chain that may have led to such an apology. Certainly, some hacker news community members could have shared some insight from practical experience. Instead, the conversation was constantly being derailed in a concerted manner. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892254
- dang 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but you're breaking the site guidelines badly by posting like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and note this one: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." These perceptions are notoriously unreliable because they're driven not by evidence (someone else having a different view from you does not count as evidence), but rather by the passions of the perceiver. Basically, people who feel strongly on a topic can't imagine that someone who feels the opposite could possibly be in good faith, so they make up stories about manipulation, astroturf, shillage, spies, foreign agents, bots, and/or trolls, to explain what feels inexplicable. It's an extremely common dynamic on the internet, and it's also extremely poisonous, so we don't want it here. For tons of past explanation, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... That's not to say there's no such thing as real abuse—just that there needs to be something objective to go on before making any such claims, and people on the internet having different opinions than you does not come close to clearing that bar. On the contrary. I've written many detailed explanations about this, some of which are listed at https://news.ycombinator.com/chinamod https://news.ycombinator.com/chinamod, if anyone wants to read more.
l1vZ11G2l 5y ago
l1vZ11G2l 5y ago

294 points by 737min 5y ago

This honestly doesn't matter all that much taken by itself but isn't that the point? Small changes like this over decades makes a real difference. "Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence" - Ovid

ei8htyfi5e 5y ago

[flagged]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
network2592 5y ago
- trasz 5y ago
  “Astroturfing” happens every time someone posts propaganda pretending it’s facts. As for grammar: you do realize there’s quite a few people living outside the US, besides China? :-D
VictorPath 5y ago
> From looking at the downvotes on this post, I believe they are on this thread downvoting posts that no moral people should have business downvoting. Just be aware. voicing an opinion that doesn’t get upvotes doesn’t mean it isn’t agreed with. If someone looks at this OP, you see most of the flagged and dead posts are from the few people who question the continual US anti-China (anti-Iran, anti-Cuba, anti-Venezuela, anti-Palestinian...) rhetoric. So it is pretty much all posts raging about China, with the few posts questioning this killed off, but the paranoia is about "infiltration" against the US China bashing, when anyone can just look at this whole post and see the opposite is true. The US military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about sucks away my taxes to do evil on other lands, its propaganda organs saying US workers and taxpayers like me questioning its parasitism and belligerence is alien. It's amusing how the US's coup de grace in Afghanistan was a massacre of innocent Afghans, and the corporate press and pundits tear their shirts we're still not there killing Afghans, yet their heart bleeds for China dealing with a terrorism problem within China. The US can go around the world and bomb whoever it wants, but China is not allowed to deal with a terrorism problem within its own borders.
- ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - amerikkkan 5y ago
president 5y ago
The problem is that it is not just paid Wu Maos partaking in mindless burying of China criticism. Often times, you'll get hyper nationalist Chinese people who just want to help their homeland and they're not getting paid to astroturf. It's not limited to the Chinese - I have seen the same pattern for posts that are critical of India/Indians in engineering boards. I believe that trust is largely gone on large forums due to astroturfing and bots.
amerikkkan 5y ago

synergy20 5y ago

Money talks. Even though it's a seller's market, what a shame.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

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.

freemint 5y ago
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.
- nieksand 5y ago
  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.
  - freemint 5y ago
    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.
Invictus0 5y ago
Divestment will be a years long process, and it will only happen if we publish a schedule of annually increasing tariffs across all Chinese imports.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  Perhaps it wasn't such a stupid idea after all....

pfortuny 5y ago

So they are hiding important information from their shareholders? And they think that is a good thing... Ah, no. They think that will give them more money. Nothing to do with goodness.

causality0 5y ago

We were happy to embrace the philosophy of sociopathic capitalist companies when it meant getting our cheap electronics built in factories with suicide nets. Now that it means giant companies care more about China's opinion than ours we want to posture about loyalty and moral responsibility.

jevoten 5y ago
I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. But it took the economist and investor class the longest to realize the drawbacks that others knew instinctively. And now you use "we" to describe their opinion and lobbying?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. Maybe not quite "happy to embrace" people of a certain political persuasion were doing a heck of a lot to not get in the way of it because eliminating those jobs reduced the wealth of people who opposed them and made those people more receptive to what they were peddling.
  - tharne 5y ago
    To be fair, this was a bipartisan lie we were all sold in the 1990's. Democrats and Republicans alike convinced Americans that globalization would result in everyone having better jobs in what is now known as the "creative class". As a country we bought this hook, line, and sinker and are still paying the price, and likely will be for quite some time.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  Does every retired boomer living quite well off their 401K retirement plan represent a member of 'the investor class'? How many would be willing to accept a cutback in dividend payouts if it meant corporations would instead invest that money in rebuilding manufacturing in the United States?

system16 5y ago

Say what you want about China, but their ability to weaponize capitalism and make multi-billion dollar companies cower and self-censor in ways they would never do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".

bravo22 5y ago
Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing what it is supposed to do -- operate in accordance with wishes of the shareholders.
- 4ggr0 5y ago
  I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.
- burkaman 5y ago
  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.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.
    - michaelt 5y ago
      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.

tomrod 5y ago

Cowards.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.
- gspr 5y ago
  > Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Yes.
  - url00 5y ago
    This exactly. We can't give up trying to get corps to show some moral fortitude. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    >I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Diffusion of liability. It's basically the whole point of a corporation. If you break evil acts down into small unrecognizable chunks that can be turned into a job description and hired for, you're able to run what would otherwise be a detestable business to any single individual person.
    - gspr 5y ago
      Sure. But the buck stops with the corporation's board, or with the CEO that they appoint. And corporations aren't free to break the law, even though that diffusion of liability should be at play in that case, too.

vmception 5y ago

The revised letter is a good instruction manual on how to maintain standing in both societies, they just should have thought of it initially. Thanks for taking the L, InteL.

vmception 5y ago

nimbius 5y ago
this is excellent news, as some US states employ prison labor heavily in their manufacturing and agriculture sectors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States#Modern_prison_labor_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...
- rastapasta42 5y ago
  If I was in prison, I would rather work. What's the point of sitting around and decaying? I bet if you gave most prisoners a choice, they would rather work too.
  - vmception 5y ago
    which now has nothing to do with Intel or its extended supply chain.
- okbutstill9 5y ago
echelon 5y ago
Companies receiving US government subsidies should manufacture finished goods domestically (or with its allies where not otherwise possible). Especially companies of strategic national interest. Intel wants a multi-billion dollar grant/bailout from Uncle Sam. Make onshoring of manufacturing a condition of receiving such funds. Furthermore, I posted a tax advantage system in a sibling thread that would help encourage other companies to do the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892031 Remove taxes from positive externalities. Attach conditions to bailouts/grants. Use money to force the outcomes you want.

network2592 5y ago

> 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 primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. And Intel is opening chip factories to boost production in the USA [0]. Why would Intel not take a position against Xinjiang slave concentration camps if presumably most of the supply chain does not depend on it? Would it be that much "trouble"? Or has some unrelated "trouble" been created for Intel that was not discussed in the article? [0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-breaks-ground-two-new-leading-edge-chip-factories-arizona.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...

thiagoharry 5y ago
> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? It would be very important to have some movement to avoid and boycott products made with slave labour from prisions, including the hundreds of thousands of slave labour from US prisions. This would be an important movement to end remaining slavery.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nwatson 5y ago
One company, two truths.
tgtweak 5y ago
It is for it's suppliers and partners. Examples of this would be Intel supplying chips to Lenovo, who are based in Beijing and who may have some components sources from that region, or Intel's fabs sourcing Silicon or other manufacturing materials (or their suppliers) from that region. Supply chains are broad and it's not hard to have goods that pass through or originate in those regions even if all your parts are produced outside that and you have no direct partnerships there.

temptemptemp111 5y ago

photochemsyn 5y ago

[flagged]

halpert 5y ago
[flagged]
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  Well, better never take an Uber ride again either as Saudi Arabia dumped $5 billion into that corporation, didn't it? I see way too many people displaying hypocritical selective outrage over such issues. Starvation and genocide in Yemen is okay with such people, apparently, it's only if China is involved that they get upset? Come on.
  - halpert 5y ago
    I don’t really consider using the services of a public company with thousands of different investors the same thing as directly purchasing the fruits of slave labor. If Uber drivers were slaves themselves, then that would be more comparable to me.
  - EdSharkey 5y ago
    I am only upset at Han scoundrels in China right now, deal with it. The world is broken, we are in triage mode, and your accusations of hypocrisy have no sting. Bravo Intel for opposing slavery. You are doing more right than wrong these days and I love you for it.
froh 5y ago
As a european, I'm amazed and deeply irritated that forced labor to this day is part of the US prison system: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263?t=1641920153339 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263?t=1641920153339 And I'm also irritated that in the US many convicts (not just inmates) lose their right to vote, a human right that in Europe you'd only lose for direct attack to the democracy (like the Jan 6 mob, or voting fraud, and even then only for a limited period of time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#Europe

analyst74 5y ago

Isn't the new wording more morally consistent? It still means they are against slave labor, including those in Xinjiang, but not blindly banning anything from the region.

dandare 5y ago
To me it sounds less morally consistent. It says they are against slavery on the paper but will not do anything concrete to avoid profiting from slave labour in practice.

tharne 5y ago

I don't know why people keep expressing surprise at things like this. Contrary to what the U.S. Supreme Court would have you believe, corporations are not people and do not have morals or values. They are organizations that seek to maximize profit and grow. Any values a corporation projects are merely reflections of whatever the dominant moral force is in a given time and place. American corporations in the U.S. in 2022 project values of wokeness because the woke left is presently the dominant cultural force in the U.S. In 1950's America, the dominant cultural force was cultural conservatism and patriotism so naturally corporations projected conservative and patriotic values. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that a large corporation operating in China in 2022 will reflect the values of the CCP. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but expecting a corporation to have meaningful morals in the same way a human does is like expecting your dog to do the dishes. Based on what they are, they're simply not capable of the task.

duped 5y ago
> corporations are not people and do not have morals or values. They are organizations that seek to maximize profit and grow. They are however made up of people who make moral decisions based on their values, including in their businesses. Plenty of corporations choose to do or not do things based on their ethics and morals. And acting as an agent of a corporation doesn't free you from moral peril when making those decisions. I don't expect Intel the Corporation to have values, but I do expect the people within Intel who choose where they manufacture or purchase manufactured goods to have qualms about using slave labor for it, supporting a genocide in doing so.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >I don't expect Intel the Corporation to have values, but I do expect the people within Intel who choose where they manufacture or purchase manufactured goods to have qualms about using slave labor for it, supporting a genocide in doing so. Human behavior is remarkably different depending on whether or not I'm the sole person on stage responsible for an action or whether I'm a single anonymous vote.
  - 5y ago

amerikkkan 5y ago

mmaunder 5y ago

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 the ire of the Chinese market, a critically important market for our film industry, much like it's a critically important market for Intel. This trend has continued and worsened. You'll notice there are no courageous well known film makers tackling the humanitarian abuses in China. It's a career killer. And yet the most popular film in China in 2021 is The Battle at Lake Changjin which depicts the Chinese fighting American soldiers and winning. It's also the highest grossing film in Chinese history and the second highest grossing film world-wide in 2021. It's also the highest grossing non-english film of 2021. America has lost the narrative and the Chinese have gained it without question. Our free market economy and desire for continued access to the Chinese market is destroying our freedom of expression and has left what used to be a community of courageous filmmakers shining light in important issues cowering in a corner.

pradn 5y ago
The Battle at Lake Changjin was the first time a non-Hollywood film was the highest grossing film worldwide since like the 1910s or 1920s. (We don't have good records before then, when a bunch of French silents were popular.)
baq 5y ago
the job of the regulator is to make the marketplace fair. why not tax income from china for movies made in us so that incentives aren't as twisted?
defaultprimate 5y ago
It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's how effective their global propaganda, cultural warfare, and data harvesting techniques are. You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Even better because they gave you this information voluntarily

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

Interesting. China seems to tick all the boxes from human rights to climate change. How comes it's not cancelled by the Twitter mob yet?

ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
They don’t have Twitter there, the GFW blocks it.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  They have Twitter here though.
  - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
    How are you going to cancel someone if they already aren't listening to you? Gunna place thousands of calls to their employer? Mail them awful things in the mail? Un follow them? I know you were joking but come on. There's no way to cancel something external. In order to cancel them, they need to buy into your system and have shame, something the CCP does not have.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      The same way any cancellation works: refuse to buy stuff made in China. Boycott Amazon until it stops selling Chinese stuff. Don't watch Chinese movies. And so on. The subject of the cancellation doesn't have to use Twitter. The consumers should - which is perfectly the case here.
president 5y ago
They have convinced [1] people that it is racist to criticize their nation [1] https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003746 https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003746

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

abeppu 5y ago

> 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.

design-material 5y ago
Um... no. That logic makes no sense
- abeppu 5y ago
  Care to expand on that? The premise of this article is that Intel was intimidated out of mentioning Xinjiang and instead opted to list categories of practices to be excluded from its supply chain. Why is it not appropriate to discuss the ways Intel and other US companies are already beneficiaries of some of those practices?

reaperducer 5y ago

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, if it wasn't for federal government regulation, Intel would be OK with slave labor. What kind of sick people are running things at Intel?

jude- 5y ago

[flagged]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chasd00 5y ago
seconded
amerikkkan 5y ago
network2592 5y ago
+1 Genuinely wanted to have a conversation about the intricacies of the Intel supply chain that may have led to such an apology. Certainly, some hacker news community members could have shared some insight from practical experience. Instead, the conversation was constantly being derailed in a concerted manner. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29892254
dang 5y ago
I'm sorry, but you're breaking the site guidelines badly by posting like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and note this one: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." These perceptions are notoriously unreliable because they're driven not by evidence (someone else having a different view from you does not count as evidence), but rather by the passions of the perceiver. Basically, people who feel strongly on a topic can't imagine that someone who feels the opposite could possibly be in good faith, so they make up stories about manipulation, astroturf, shillage, spies, foreign agents, bots, and/or trolls, to explain what feels inexplicable. It's an extremely common dynamic on the internet, and it's also extremely poisonous, so we don't want it here. For tons of past explanation, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... That's not to say there's no such thing as real abuse—just that there needs to be something objective to go on before making any such claims, and people on the internet having different opinions than you does not come close to clearing that bar. On the contrary. I've written many detailed explanations about this, some of which are listed at https://news.ycombinator.com/chinamod https://news.ycombinator.com/chinamod, if anyone wants to read more.

l1vZ11G2l 5y ago