Personally, I'm angry at Intel for not having actual convictions.
It looks like they're doing the ban, not because they actually believe that there's slave labor in Xinjiang, but because their stockholders will be mad if they don't. And they issued the apology, not because they realized that there is no slave labor in Xinjiang, but because they don't want China angry at them. They're trying to just get on with being a business. (And to some degree that's fair. Intel is a business, not a moral crusader. Still, I'd like them to either take a stand, or not take a stand. Don't try to "take a stand" just to make people happy.)
("Angry" is too strong a word. "Disappointed" might be better. But I said "angry" to match the wording of the parent.)
As long as corporations are legal persons, I'm going to hold them to a moral standard, and I think the American public as a whole has a duty to do the same. If they can contribute to politicians, then we all have a personal stake in their ethics.
If corporations are people as the Supreme Court would have us believe, they are most certainly psychopaths. Natural people need to be clear-eyed about this. Don’t look to corporations as moral leaders. They will fail almost any moral test you can throw at them.
It looks like they're doing the ban, not because they actually believe that there's slave labor in Xinjiang, but because their stockholders will be mad if they don't. And they issued the apology, not because they realized that there is no slave labor in Xinjiang, but because they don't want China angry at them. They're trying to just get on with being a business. (And to some degree that's fair. Intel is a business, not a moral crusader. Still, I'd like them to either take a stand, or not take a stand. Don't try to "take a stand" just to make people happy.)
("Angry" is too strong a word. "Disappointed" might be better. But I said "angry" to match the wording of the parent.)