I don't know why people keep expressing surprise at things like this.<p>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.<p>Any values a corporation projects are merely reflections of whatever the dominant moral force is in a given time and place.<p>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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?<p>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].<p>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?<p>[0] <a href="https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-breaks-ground-two-new-leading-edge-chip-factories-arizona.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...</a>
Isn't the new wording more morally consistent?<p>It still means they are against slave labor, including those in Xinjiang, but not blindly banning anything from the region.
> 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."<p>> “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.”<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>"Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence" - Ovid
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.
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.<p>"When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".
> 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."<p>Designed by Intel in California™
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.<p>You'll notice there are no courageous well known film makers tackling the humanitarian abuses in China. It's a career killer.<p>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.<p>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.
Meta-comment: can the mods shadow-ban the Pooh Patrol already? They are agents of a hostile foreign power that has no respect for human rights at all. You don't need to give them space to spew their bullshit here.
<i>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</i><p>So, if it wasn't for federal government regulation, Intel would be OK with slave labor.<p>What kind of sick people are running things at Intel?
So they are hiding important information from their shareholders?<p>And they think that is a good thing...<p>Ah, no. They think that will give them more money. Nothing to do with goodness.
Name and shame.<p>We need to divest our manufacturing from China.<p>Perhaps by exposing such practices and nagging hypocrytical companies we can make divestment happen sooner?<p>Twitter mobs could be used for good once.