15
America’s assassination attempt on Huawei is backfiring
(www.economist.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
15 points (57.6% liked)
World News
38578 readers
2180 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The title is based on a false premise that apparently has nothing to do with the content of the article.
Is there no author listed for this article?
First of all, the US had no plans on eradicating Huawei. They explicitly tried to limit Huawei's international and especially US expansion as a delaying tactic while the US refocused on and invested in chip tech and domestic tech production. That succeeded. They were very clear that the US lack of support for Huawei was a result of Chinese corporations being legally compelled to collaborate with their government, which is indisputable, proven and ongoing.
There was no stated intent to eradicate Huawei.
Backfire? China's economy has been severely disrupted, their tech sector is not catching up despite truly massive investment in chipmaking and other sectors and the US has secured a technological alliance with the most advanced chipmakers in the world and funding for them.
The rest of the content of the article rehashes years old news tangential to China technology but nothing that has to do with eradication or backfiring and pretends the old tech news is relevant or new information, which I'm not seeing.
China is trying to develop new hardware and software. That is a security threat given repeated cyber attacks by Chinese corporations and the prominence of chipmaking in modern technology.
Their failure in developing these innovations during the past decade to an international competitive advantage is not proof that any "eradication" that never existed has "backfired".
I had to double check when reading the article that this was indeed published by the Economist, particularly after this line:
How do they know this, besides perhaps an official from the CCP making a statement about it?
Exactly, I was shocked that this was on the economist, it seems like a highly biased while mostly irrelevant article.
Very bizarre.
To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they are trying to stay neutral by publishing articles from various points of view, including the CCP's.
I would be fine with that, and the economist has lots of great international articles, but my concern is with this article in particular.
They are very clearly starting from multiple false premises with zero direct evidence to back them up, and then book-reporting on piecemeal unrelated content in the article.
It's inaccurate and misrepresentative reporting of a straightforward and well-documented tech struggle.
The Economist does not typically list individual authors on their articles.
Oh, okay. Thanks.
https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous-8f573745631d
I actually like that reasoning, that what is written is more important than who wrote it.
This article is so poorly written and reasoned that I was curious, though.
News articles without an author and date shouldn't be allowed to be posted. The legitimacy of news sources goes way down without those.
I mostly agree, although this particular case was my ignorance showing.
I've never noticed before that economist articles don't list their authors.
The economist uniquely states on their website that they deliberately don't post the author s for their articles because many of them are collaborative and they think that the content of the article should be more important than who wrote it.
Which in most cases is a very admirable mission statement, but can obviously be frustrating in cases like this where you want to hold a party responsible and the only recourse is to wait for a possible internal investigation by the new source themselves.
There are obviously a lot of pros and cons there, and I'm not. Convinced that the cons outweigh the pros, but at least they aren't deliberately hiding this specific author. The economist authors publish from anonymity as a matter of course.