• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    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 wasax 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”.

    • xep@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      I had to double check when reading the article that this was indeed published by the Economist, particularly after this line:

      As a private firm whose goals dovetail neatly with those of the Chinese government, it is becoming a model for how China thinks about innovation.

      How do they know this, besides perhaps an official from the CCP making a statement about it?

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        Exactly, I was shocked that this was on the economist, it seems like a highly biased while mostly irrelevant article.

        Very bizarre.

        • xep@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          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.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 days ago

            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.

    • Audacious@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      News articles without an author and date shouldn’t be allowed to be posted. The legitimacy of news sources goes way down without those.