this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
26 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

4921 readers
299 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

One of the reasons the US Government banned the use of Huawei devices in US critical infrastructure was the Chinese government ownership stake in Huawei. And that makes complete sense, you don't run your critical infrastructure on devices which a major adversary might be able to compromise at the hardware level. By the same argument, I can see many countries being uncomfortable using chips made by Intel, because of the large ownership stake the US Government holds in Intel. It wouldn't be the first time the US Government has been implicated in hardware hacking for SIGINT. The NSA TAO was outed hacking Cisco routers en route to target organizations.

So ya, gotta expect that some countries will be hesitant to use Intel chips in some places. At the same time, if the US Government has a high level of visibility and control over Intel's manufacturing and processes, there is a good argument that US critical infrastructure and defense assets will favor Intel chips. So, it may be that Intel ends up trading non-US customers for a greater share of the US Government's business.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Deal hasn’t even been finalized yet, and already they announce its gonna cause problems. Everything he touches turns to shit.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nah this is just red scare tactics from Intel. This is not actually an entirely "bad" move by Trump, its just being done for the wrong reasons. People have been asking the government to start doing this kind of thing again for decades. The most prosperous period in US history was during the height of government interference in the market.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Intel is just the easy one for people to get on board with, as they are struggling and have received grants etc. Lutnick already said they want to do the same with Lockheed-Martin, who does not have the same issues, and expanding from there. I fully disagree with the notion being put forth that this is comparable to other nations ‘socializing’ their industries. This is Trump taking a cut. He attacked Intel, attacked their ceo and he threatened to have him removed. The ceo then bowed and is apparently giving up 10% of the company and is being called a genius by Trump now. It’s extortion.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

its just being done for the wrong reasons

Thats what i meant by that. Its not the 10% stake itself that hurts the company or economy, its how Trump is utilizing it.
I dont give a fuck about Intels well being or how well the US economy is doing, but if this leads to normalizing government involvement in essential industries again, then that would be a win globally.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I get what your saying, and if it lead to that then I agree it would be a good thing. But that isn’t what this is or how it is going to move things forward. It’d be like thinking that universities will thrive because Trump is normalizing govt involvement in them over the Harvard threats and expansion beyond.

Linking the altruistic potential of what he is doing to the very obvious extortion is carrying his water in terms of acceptance. It’s the same as what has allowed him to skate in the media for so long instead of calling out what it actually is.