15 ms·

> 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 wit

> 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.
- network2592 5y ago
  Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source chips from somewhere else. But as far as suppliers, and chips in particular, CCP has very little leverage. Most chips are manufactured in Taiwan [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-world-depends-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    That graph says nothing. It's just talking about revenue. TSMC obviously has the biggest slice of the cake, but they produce the highest volume of premium chips. Most of what the world consumes are not in fact premium chips. Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.
    - network2592 5y ago
      Do you have data on the quantity of chips rather than overall revenue? You claim this figure is meaningless. In the absence of reliable data, we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips. But, it is certainly not meaningless.
      - rjzzleep 5y ago
        > we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips No, most institutions don't publish what their production capacity is. There is an article claiming that TSMC makes "92% of world's most sophisticated chips". Define most sophisticated. You can't just throw in revenue graphs and pretend they show anything of value, just because north america measures success solely in revenue and growth. The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to substantiate your claims. EDIT: Interesting to see people bring in random graphs from CNBC. Things that would not even be considered investment advice and present it as scientific evidence without any sort of due diligence on their. Sad that this is the kind of discourse that we have to have. Things are not automatically true, valid, or contextual just because a big media corporation published them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ramesh31 5y ago
>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"? Why would they? Corporations have two choices now. Bend the knee and stay in the good graces of a government that controls access to the largest consumer market in the world, or take a moral stance and win meaningless social brownie points. There's not even a decision to be made.
- network2592 5y ago
  CCP may arguably control the world's largest consumer market. That is debatable when considering the European Union as a single market or even India. Considering either consumption level or sheer number of consumers, it is not entirely clear that China is the world's largest consumer market. But, let's presume that it is. CCP simply does not allow genuine access to sell goods or services. There is a reason why Google and Facebook and so many other dominant companies are practically non existent in China. So the benefit of access to a supposed largest consumer market that is heavily restricted to foreigners seems largely inconsequential. Is this a wrong interpretation?
  - ogogmad 5y ago
    It's still accessible to Intel and Microsoft. I don't think China is capable yet of producing equivalent goods. On the other hand, what Google and Facebook did can be done just as well by others. Actually, maybe China is indeed able to produce decent Intel-compatible processors. Not sure.
    - network2592 5y ago
      How much longer will it be accessible for Intel and Microsoft though? CCP does not think twice about pulling the rug on local tech giants [0]. Why would it hesitate for Intel and Microsoft? It seems like only a matter of time. As far as chips in particular, CCP is pushing hard to make chips locally [1]. So again, just a matter of time before Intel gets replaced in China. Is the Intel leadership being incredibly short-sighted besides of course being devoid of ethical common sense? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-and-the-ccp-turned-on-jack-ma-ant-and-china-s-fintech-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-an... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-own-chips-but-still-relies-on-foreign-tech.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-o...
mlindner 5y ago
> To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. Intel has fabs all over the world, including many in the US and some in China[1]. Whenever people talk about chip manufacturing they seem to only think about high-end cutting edge processes, when in fact the majority of quantity of chips produced are at non-cutting edge fabs that are spread all over the world and made by many companies that you haven't heard of, but also Intel. However this was never about Intel manufacturing chips in Xianjing, it was about the long long tail of supply chain that goes into these ships from mines through to chemical supply companies up to industrial machinery supply and everything in between. [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000015142/programs.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
- network2592 5y ago
  Is there any critical non interchangeable raw material that goes into Intel chips for which CCP has exclusive global control? Xinjiang has some silica mines [0] which may go into silicon production. Presumably, that is a critical material for Intel. Can it be sourced elsewhere? Is that the leverage the CCP has over Intel? [0] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/us-ban-chinas-xinjiang-solar-products-linked-alleged-forced https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...
  - tlear 5y ago
    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.
    - radmuzom 5y ago
      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.
Aperocky 5y ago
> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? This is the very definition of a straw man argument. Very few people actually cares about what really do happen in Xinjiang, hopefully this relatively balanced reporting by Associated Press can shed some light: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-ch...
- network2592 5y ago
  Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. Do not confuse lack of action with lack of caring. Effective action may require collective action. But individually, most people care. Yet, collectively, they cannot seem to do anything meaningful. You are making a statement that is the definition of an ecological fallacy [0] The article you pointed out is hardly balanced. The access of journalists is heavily restricted. Naturally, any information that comes out from a standard news outlet with government sanctioned offices like Associated Press will sound like government propaganda. CCP will not let AP have access to any information that counters the narrative of the propaganda. For a different take on things, and an outlet that does journalism differently without official representation with CCP, have a look at this piece from VICE [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ
  - trasz 5y ago
    >Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. When they exist. We know they exist in the US (private prisons), but there are no reliable sources that confirm they still exist in China.
    - network2592 5y ago
em500 5y ago
> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? Maybe their position is that they have not established as a fact that there is slave labour in concentration camps in Xinjiang? Have you considered that as an alternative possibility? From the article: > 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." That automatically covers Xinjiang is there is slave labour there, in additional to all other instances of slave labour, no? That sounds like a better wording than the original.
- loceng 5y ago
  I can believe the Earth is flat if I avoid the evidence and don't care about congruence - especially if financially motivated.
  - melonbar 5y ago
    I could not agree with you more, it amazes me the mental gymnastics some will go through in the quest to convince themselves otherwise of something wholly obvious. Sure, you could take the CCP’s word for it (because their behavior is not at all suspicious and they have a great track record when it comes to human rights). And sure, to some that might hold a lot of weight. However, even if rumored, don’t you want to be the one that doesn’t support genocide regardless?
    - loceng 5y ago
      The even bigger tell is when the UN wanted to go into China to independently investigate, the CCP denied access. They don't want to be a team player in the global society/economy.
- network2592 5y ago
  Engaging in epistemic and semantic hair splitting does not alter the reality of slave concentration camps or make it any less worse. Here is a recent article [0] on rape and forced sterilization of Uyghur women. [0] https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of-chinas-labor-camps/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of...
simion314 5y ago
>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.
- abhchand 5y ago
  Yes I would say it is used correctly here, with the definition you mentioned. And your english is good for not being an english speaker!
- ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - amerikkkan 5y ago
  - simion314 5y ago
    I understand is evil, but in my language a different word/phrase would be used, like maybe deportation/labor camps/political prisoners. I would prefer something more clear, otherwise someone mentioned that "slave labor" could be used for a job where you are threated bad and you have no actual choice to quit.
  - trasz 5y ago
    So essentially something that's considered perfectly normal in American prisons. Bit of a double standards, don't you think?
    - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
      - 5y ago
jchook 5y ago
It’s economic warfare against a destabilized region that only recently quelled constant terrorism. The US casts a blanket assumption that ALL products from the region are produced by slave labor unless proven otherwise. That’s backwards. And meanwhile US government and corporations have no problem buying products produced by US prison slave labor, or overseas child labor.
- ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
  It’s absolutely not backwards. When you have a million people in a concentration camp in a given region, and China is known for shipping these slaves around their country to work in factories, to make sanctions and targeted policies more difficult to apply, can you maybe see why a rule of thumb has been created black listing an entire region? This is their choice. Cause. Effect.
  - fakeslimshady5 5y ago
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Is that why US also sanctions John Deer from selling tractors to XJ when XJ wanted to automate cotton harvesting because paying "slave" labours high wages was unprofitable. Almost like US wants to XJ to rely on manual labour to perpetuate coerced labour myth. Cause. Effect.
    - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        There's media of Uyghurs working in XJ cotton fields as part of local cotton industry released by PRC media that got repurposed as coerced labour with zero evidence. It's like how videos of XJ transfer workers from their own douyin accounts got repurposed as "leaked" evidence of slave labour. Yes Zenz claims are basically myths, trying to portray extremely well known and studied rural labour transfer programs as coerced labour and connect any piece of mistreatment - of which there inevitably will be for a program this large - to fabricate myth of XJ coerced labour. US sanctioned XPCC in charge of XJ cotton, ergo John Deere can no longer sell advanced cotton picking machinery to XJ cotton industry despite 4000% increase in orders year prior. 70% of XJ cotton was automated already, predominately in North. XPCC wanted to buy harvesters to automate 30% of XJ south cotton that relied more on manual labour until "slave labour" programs paid enough that manual labour no longer profitable. Because slave labour involves compensation so high that importing expensive US machines becomes more economic. So why would US not want John Deere to sell XPCC machines that would eliminate alleged coerced labour... oh wait.
vmception 5y ago
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 friends happen to respect one country slightly more all because they repeated a creepy chant every day as children in grade school.
- network2592 5y ago
  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 are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang while saying generally Intel is against slave labour. A clarification of the Intel position is in order. More to the point, Intel should be asked whether it deems Xinjiang to have slave concentration camps. What made it explicitly specify Xinjiang as an example of slave labour? Does removing Xinjiang reference mean that Intel now believes there are no slave concentration camps? Hence, the clarification question about Intel's position is in earnest. But, it was just a succinct form of all these follow up questions. Sorry if that was unclear.
  - vmception 5y ago
    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.
vanusa 5y ago
So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? You read correctly. That is exactly their position. Not that they are fans of slave labour or of what is happening to the Uyghur people, per se. Just that in the scheme of things - as long the sales channels remain open and unimpeded - they consider it perfectly acceptable to do business in countries where genocide is happening right there, in plain view, for all to see. And will even go so far as to obsequiously apologize to the authorities in these countries for showing event the slightest hint of a suggestion that they felt otherwise. Very much like back in ... certain countries at certain times that we're not supposed to make comparisons to.
- goblin89 5y ago
  If slavery, segregation, religious prosecution, mass killings and forced sterilizations took place in the West at some point, does it make those things OK for the remainder of humanity’s history? No one was perfect at all times from day 1, but we should try to hold our partners, and by implication ourselves, to higher standards now that we have agreed to put the aforementioned actions at the extreme left side of the bad-to-good scale.
  - ILMostro7 5y ago
    Wait and see. Maybe they just need to get their version of the Holocaust to get it out of their system. Deep down, they are good people doing horrific things. So, we just need to let them catch up while they repeat history's horrific acts with impunity.
    - goblin89 5y ago
      It’s unclear whether without strong worldwide recognition and condemnation it will ever be out of the system, and I’m afraid what made Holocaust to be recognized and condemned is that those who did it started and lost a violent war against other nations. (I know you jest.)
      - 5y ago
rjzzleep 5y ago
Just yesterday someone commented on the google's union efforts with the following: > Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position.[1] The discussion whether it's true or not is less important at this point than the fact that Governments is responsible for making sure that there are rules to be followed. The main problem here is that most governments themselves are also run by the same profit-seeking entities/people. The whole situation right now is based on the fact that everyone moved their production to china with complete disregard for everything but short term gain. Amazons Bezos is in fact not wrong when he says that he's not going to pay tax out of some altruistic ideas, but that it is in fact up to governments to make proper legislation. It's just that governments are busy doing nothing but talking for the most part(or at least have learned to do nothing over the past decades). I actually had a social democrat party member tell me a couple years ago, that the politicians have a really hard job travelling around talking, and having to read consultant written legislation. This is in effect not that different from tech ceo's scheduling 4 hours of meetings every day and calling it work. Most people don't actually want to change the status quo, they just want to put blame on someone. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29876934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29876934
- cto_of_antifa 5y ago
dirtyid 5y ago
Intel and most multinationals' sanitized position is going to be "slave/coerced labour" doesn't exist in their supply chain according to their (lax) audits and oversights. But they're forced to comply with US blanket sanction on the region. Because at the end of the day, a US company operates no differently than a PRC company that is completely beholden to the state security apparatus. Sorry to PRC market for being US SOE and arm of US foreign policy. > Intel not take a position against Xinjiang Because PRC position is coerced labour doesn't exist. It's decades old rural labour transfer programs + vocational training that pays multitudes more than regional norms and competitive with national wages is being portrayed as slave labour by US propaganda. If you want to make money in PRC, comport with PRC position or at least figure out messaging to pave over contradictions and save face. Ergo, US companies are forced to comply with US laws and holds no position on which narrative is correct.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Just because they take no outward "position" ... doesn't mean that internally they are not perfectly aware of what is happening in Xinjiang - and of the moral dimensions of their complicity in it.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Or internally these companies could be aware that US propaganda perpetuated under Mike Pompeo as head of state is just that, propaganda for US interests and there's no point attaching any morality and complicity to it. It's about compliance and drafting up PR to minimize fallout from useful idiots in both markets. Any company operating in PRC for 20+ years knows of rural labour transfer programs, even have reluctant suppliers pressured to take Uyghur workers by CCP because they're over compensated and underqualified. Half the reason terrorism exploded in XJ 2009 is due to drama caused by one of these programs (Shaoguan Incident). Companies with established supply chains in PRC knows these coerced labour stories are bullshit. There's about 400M other rural poor Chinese who will work for less than how much these transfer programs designed to boost minorities are paying. And they don't even need to be retrained for literacy skills.
trasz 5y ago
It's fascinating how one can actually believe Intel is manufacturing stuff using "slave labour in concentration camps" purely because his state propaganda tells them so.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  - trasz 5y ago
    I'd guess they are comparable, but one difference is that US state propaganda is spread around the whole world, while the Chinese one stays in China. The mere fact that Americans believe Chinese somehow cannot criticize their country's flaws - despite how obviously idiotic this belief would be - shows that. (Or the belief that China is somehow trying to eradicate Winnie the Pooh, despite Chinese Disneyworld being a thing.)
    - leadingthenet 5y ago
      Do we live in an alternate reality where open state censorship of media and the Great Firewall are somehow not a thing in China any more?
      - trasz 5y ago
        Of course it is a thing, same as corporate censorship in the West. It’s just that Chinese don’t try to pretend it’s not the case.
        ILMostro7 5y ago
        Right, otherwise, it's just propaganda and people lying about their own horrific experiences. Got it.
        trasz 5y ago

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.

network2592 5y ago
Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source chips from somewhere else. But as far as suppliers, and chips in particular, CCP has very little leverage. Most chips are manufactured in Taiwan [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-world-depends-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  That graph says nothing. It's just talking about revenue. TSMC obviously has the biggest slice of the cake, but they produce the highest volume of premium chips. Most of what the world consumes are not in fact premium chips. Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.
  - network2592 5y ago
    Do you have data on the quantity of chips rather than overall revenue? You claim this figure is meaningless. In the absence of reliable data, we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips. But, it is certainly not meaningless.
    - rjzzleep 5y ago
      > we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips No, most institutions don't publish what their production capacity is. There is an article claiming that TSMC makes "92% of world's most sophisticated chips". Define most sophisticated. You can't just throw in revenue graphs and pretend they show anything of value, just because north america measures success solely in revenue and growth. The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to substantiate your claims. EDIT: Interesting to see people bring in random graphs from CNBC. Things that would not even be considered investment advice and present it as scientific evidence without any sort of due diligence on their. Sad that this is the kind of discourse that we have to have. Things are not automatically true, valid, or contextual just because a big media corporation published them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ramesh31 5y ago

>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"? Why would they? Corporations have two choices now. Bend the knee and stay in the good graces of a government that controls access to the largest consumer market in the world, or take a moral stance and win meaningless social brownie points. There's not even a decision to be made.

network2592 5y ago
CCP may arguably control the world's largest consumer market. That is debatable when considering the European Union as a single market or even India. Considering either consumption level or sheer number of consumers, it is not entirely clear that China is the world's largest consumer market. But, let's presume that it is. CCP simply does not allow genuine access to sell goods or services. There is a reason why Google and Facebook and so many other dominant companies are practically non existent in China. So the benefit of access to a supposed largest consumer market that is heavily restricted to foreigners seems largely inconsequential. Is this a wrong interpretation?
- ogogmad 5y ago
  It's still accessible to Intel and Microsoft. I don't think China is capable yet of producing equivalent goods. On the other hand, what Google and Facebook did can be done just as well by others. Actually, maybe China is indeed able to produce decent Intel-compatible processors. Not sure.
  - network2592 5y ago
    How much longer will it be accessible for Intel and Microsoft though? CCP does not think twice about pulling the rug on local tech giants [0]. Why would it hesitate for Intel and Microsoft? It seems like only a matter of time. As far as chips in particular, CCP is pushing hard to make chips locally [1]. So again, just a matter of time before Intel gets replaced in China. Is the Intel leadership being incredibly short-sighted besides of course being devoid of ethical common sense? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-and-the-ccp-turned-on-jack-ma-ant-and-china-s-fintech-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-an... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-own-chips-but-still-relies-on-foreign-tech.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-o...

mlindner 5y ago

> To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. Intel has fabs all over the world, including many in the US and some in China[1]. Whenever people talk about chip manufacturing they seem to only think about high-end cutting edge processes, when in fact the majority of quantity of chips produced are at non-cutting edge fabs that are spread all over the world and made by many companies that you haven't heard of, but also Intel. However this was never about Intel manufacturing chips in Xianjing, it was about the long long tail of supply chain that goes into these ships from mines through to chemical supply companies up to industrial machinery supply and everything in between. [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000015142/programs.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

network2592 5y ago
Is there any critical non interchangeable raw material that goes into Intel chips for which CCP has exclusive global control? Xinjiang has some silica mines [0] which may go into silicon production. Presumably, that is a critical material for Intel. Can it be sourced elsewhere? Is that the leverage the CCP has over Intel? [0] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/us-ban-chinas-xinjiang-solar-products-linked-alleged-forced https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...
- tlear 5y ago
  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.
  - radmuzom 5y ago
    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.

Aperocky 5y ago

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? This is the very definition of a straw man argument. Very few people actually cares about what really do happen in Xinjiang, hopefully this relatively balanced reporting by Associated Press can shed some light: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-ch...

network2592 5y ago
Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. Do not confuse lack of action with lack of caring. Effective action may require collective action. But individually, most people care. Yet, collectively, they cannot seem to do anything meaningful. You are making a statement that is the definition of an ecological fallacy [0] The article you pointed out is hardly balanced. The access of journalists is heavily restricted. Naturally, any information that comes out from a standard news outlet with government sanctioned offices like Associated Press will sound like government propaganda. CCP will not let AP have access to any information that counters the narrative of the propaganda. For a different take on things, and an outlet that does journalism differently without official representation with CCP, have a look at this piece from VICE [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ
- trasz 5y ago
  >Most people would be unequivocally against slave concentration camps. When they exist. We know they exist in the US (private prisons), but there are no reliable sources that confirm they still exist in China.
  - network2592 5y ago

em500 5y ago

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? Maybe their position is that they have not established as a fact that there is slave labour in concentration camps in Xinjiang? Have you considered that as an alternative possibility? From the article: > 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." That automatically covers Xinjiang is there is slave labour there, in additional to all other instances of slave labour, no? That sounds like a better wording than the original.

loceng 5y ago
I can believe the Earth is flat if I avoid the evidence and don't care about congruence - especially if financially motivated.
- melonbar 5y ago
  I could not agree with you more, it amazes me the mental gymnastics some will go through in the quest to convince themselves otherwise of something wholly obvious. Sure, you could take the CCP’s word for it (because their behavior is not at all suspicious and they have a great track record when it comes to human rights). And sure, to some that might hold a lot of weight. However, even if rumored, don’t you want to be the one that doesn’t support genocide regardless?
  - loceng 5y ago
    The even bigger tell is when the UN wanted to go into China to independently investigate, the CCP denied access. They don't want to be a team player in the global society/economy.
network2592 5y ago
Engaging in epistemic and semantic hair splitting does not alter the reality of slave concentration camps or make it any less worse. Here is a recent article [0] on rape and forced sterilization of Uyghur women. [0] https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of-chinas-labor-camps/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of...

simion314 5y ago

>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.

abhchand 5y ago
Yes I would say it is used correctly here, with the definition you mentioned. And your english is good for not being an english speaker!
ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
[flagged]
- amerikkkan 5y ago
- simion314 5y ago
  I understand is evil, but in my language a different word/phrase would be used, like maybe deportation/labor camps/political prisoners. I would prefer something more clear, otherwise someone mentioned that "slave labor" could be used for a job where you are threated bad and you have no actual choice to quit.
- trasz 5y ago
  So essentially something that's considered perfectly normal in American prisons. Bit of a double standards, don't you think?
  - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
    - 5y ago

jchook 5y ago

It’s economic warfare against a destabilized region that only recently quelled constant terrorism. The US casts a blanket assumption that ALL products from the region are produced by slave labor unless proven otherwise. That’s backwards. And meanwhile US government and corporations have no problem buying products produced by US prison slave labor, or overseas child labor.

ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
It’s absolutely not backwards. When you have a million people in a concentration camp in a given region, and China is known for shipping these slaves around their country to work in factories, to make sanctions and targeted policies more difficult to apply, can you maybe see why a rule of thumb has been created black listing an entire region? This is their choice. Cause. Effect.
- fakeslimshady5 5y ago
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Is that why US also sanctions John Deer from selling tractors to XJ when XJ wanted to automate cotton harvesting because paying "slave" labours high wages was unprofitable. Almost like US wants to XJ to rely on manual labour to perpetuate coerced labour myth. Cause. Effect.
  - ei8htyfi5e 5y ago
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      There's media of Uyghurs working in XJ cotton fields as part of local cotton industry released by PRC media that got repurposed as coerced labour with zero evidence. It's like how videos of XJ transfer workers from their own douyin accounts got repurposed as "leaked" evidence of slave labour. Yes Zenz claims are basically myths, trying to portray extremely well known and studied rural labour transfer programs as coerced labour and connect any piece of mistreatment - of which there inevitably will be for a program this large - to fabricate myth of XJ coerced labour. US sanctioned XPCC in charge of XJ cotton, ergo John Deere can no longer sell advanced cotton picking machinery to XJ cotton industry despite 4000% increase in orders year prior. 70% of XJ cotton was automated already, predominately in North. XPCC wanted to buy harvesters to automate 30% of XJ south cotton that relied more on manual labour until "slave labour" programs paid enough that manual labour no longer profitable. Because slave labour involves compensation so high that importing expensive US machines becomes more economic. So why would US not want John Deere to sell XPCC machines that would eliminate alleged coerced labour... oh wait.

vmception 5y ago

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 friends happen to respect one country slightly more all because they repeated a creepy chant every day as children in grade school.

network2592 5y ago
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 are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang while saying generally Intel is against slave labour. A clarification of the Intel position is in order. More to the point, Intel should be asked whether it deems Xinjiang to have slave concentration camps. What made it explicitly specify Xinjiang as an example of slave labour? Does removing Xinjiang reference mean that Intel now believes there are no slave concentration camps? Hence, the clarification question about Intel's position is in earnest. But, it was just a succinct form of all these follow up questions. Sorry if that was unclear.
- vmception 5y ago
  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.

vanusa 5y ago

So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? You read correctly. That is exactly their position. Not that they are fans of slave labour or of what is happening to the Uyghur people, per se. Just that in the scheme of things - as long the sales channels remain open and unimpeded - they consider it perfectly acceptable to do business in countries where genocide is happening right there, in plain view, for all to see. And will even go so far as to obsequiously apologize to the authorities in these countries for showing event the slightest hint of a suggestion that they felt otherwise. Very much like back in ... certain countries at certain times that we're not supposed to make comparisons to.

goblin89 5y ago
If slavery, segregation, religious prosecution, mass killings and forced sterilizations took place in the West at some point, does it make those things OK for the remainder of humanity’s history? No one was perfect at all times from day 1, but we should try to hold our partners, and by implication ourselves, to higher standards now that we have agreed to put the aforementioned actions at the extreme left side of the bad-to-good scale.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Wait and see. Maybe they just need to get their version of the Holocaust to get it out of their system. Deep down, they are good people doing horrific things. So, we just need to let them catch up while they repeat history's horrific acts with impunity.
  - goblin89 5y ago
    It’s unclear whether without strong worldwide recognition and condemnation it will ever be out of the system, and I’m afraid what made Holocaust to be recognized and condemned is that those who did it started and lost a violent war against other nations. (I know you jest.)
    - 5y ago

rjzzleep 5y ago

Just yesterday someone commented on the google's union efforts with the following: > Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position.[1] The discussion whether it's true or not is less important at this point than the fact that Governments is responsible for making sure that there are rules to be followed. The main problem here is that most governments themselves are also run by the same profit-seeking entities/people. The whole situation right now is based on the fact that everyone moved their production to china with complete disregard for everything but short term gain. Amazons Bezos is in fact not wrong when he says that he's not going to pay tax out of some altruistic ideas, but that it is in fact up to governments to make proper legislation. It's just that governments are busy doing nothing but talking for the most part(or at least have learned to do nothing over the past decades). I actually had a social democrat party member tell me a couple years ago, that the politicians have a really hard job travelling around talking, and having to read consultant written legislation. This is in effect not that different from tech ceo's scheduling 4 hours of meetings every day and calling it work. Most people don't actually want to change the status quo, they just want to put blame on someone. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29876934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29876934

cto_of_antifa 5y ago

dirtyid 5y ago

Intel and most multinationals' sanitized position is going to be "slave/coerced labour" doesn't exist in their supply chain according to their (lax) audits and oversights. But they're forced to comply with US blanket sanction on the region. Because at the end of the day, a US company operates no differently than a PRC company that is completely beholden to the state security apparatus. Sorry to PRC market for being US SOE and arm of US foreign policy. > Intel not take a position against Xinjiang Because PRC position is coerced labour doesn't exist. It's decades old rural labour transfer programs + vocational training that pays multitudes more than regional norms and competitive with national wages is being portrayed as slave labour by US propaganda. If you want to make money in PRC, comport with PRC position or at least figure out messaging to pave over contradictions and save face. Ergo, US companies are forced to comply with US laws and holds no position on which narrative is correct.

vanusa 5y ago
Just because they take no outward "position" ... doesn't mean that internally they are not perfectly aware of what is happening in Xinjiang - and of the moral dimensions of their complicity in it.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Or internally these companies could be aware that US propaganda perpetuated under Mike Pompeo as head of state is just that, propaganda for US interests and there's no point attaching any morality and complicity to it. It's about compliance and drafting up PR to minimize fallout from useful idiots in both markets. Any company operating in PRC for 20+ years knows of rural labour transfer programs, even have reluctant suppliers pressured to take Uyghur workers by CCP because they're over compensated and underqualified. Half the reason terrorism exploded in XJ 2009 is due to drama caused by one of these programs (Shaoguan Incident). Companies with established supply chains in PRC knows these coerced labour stories are bullshit. There's about 400M other rural poor Chinese who will work for less than how much these transfer programs designed to boost minorities are paying. And they don't even need to be retrained for literacy skills.

trasz 5y ago

It's fascinating how one can actually believe Intel is manufacturing stuff using "slave labour in concentration camps" purely because his state propaganda tells them so.

ILMostro7 5y ago
- trasz 5y ago
  I'd guess they are comparable, but one difference is that US state propaganda is spread around the whole world, while the Chinese one stays in China. The mere fact that Americans believe Chinese somehow cannot criticize their country's flaws - despite how obviously idiotic this belief would be - shows that. (Or the belief that China is somehow trying to eradicate Winnie the Pooh, despite Chinese Disneyworld being a thing.)
  - leadingthenet 5y ago
    Do we live in an alternate reality where open state censorship of media and the Great Firewall are somehow not a thing in China any more?
    - trasz 5y ago
      Of course it is a thing, same as corporate censorship in the West. It’s just that Chinese don’t try to pretend it’s not the case.
      - ILMostro7 5y ago
        Right, otherwise, it's just propaganda and people lying about their own horrific experiences. Got it.
        trasz 5y ago