To me, it looks like that site was not created by ARM, no one was able to prove ARM created it, and it could be just a scam to attack ARM's public image. That's bad journalism right there.
https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr...
Probably fair to assume it's sanctioned by ARM if it's on arm.com. Unless they play the "we were hacked" card.
"Arm told us it had hoped its anti-RISC-V site would kickstart a discussion around architectures, rather than come off as a smear attack. In any case, on Tuesday, it took the site offline by killing its DNS.
“Our intention in creating a webpage to offer key considerations around commercial RISC-V based products was to inform a lively industry debate," an Arm spokesperson told The Register."
The linked image stored on the ARM server from the comment above is a way stronger proof imho.
Edit : The picture could have still been hijacked from its initial purpose by a malicious actor. Maybe ARM didn't planned to use that picture the same way it was presented on the RISC related domain.
It seems "well-known" sources of news are using their comfortable position to accept a lower quality of their journalism.
I'm not saying their are bad intended, but they took the choice of posting often (with possibly unverified information) rather than posting rigorously checked facts, and cross checked with different sources. I feel like I have to do myself their work of cross verifying everything they post...
Already on the previous thread, someone suggested to be careful about that website, as it couldn't be proved ARM did it.
"Copyright © 1995-2018 Arm Limited (or its affiliates). All rights reserved."
http://web.archive.org/web/20180710112443/https://riscv-basi...
Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website.
I can copy paste that in 5 minutes to any website I own.
> Had it been a "false flag" operation to smear ARM itself most likely the company would have made public statements to state that they don't own the website.
Maybe it doesn't worth worrying about a scam that only 10 nerds on internet care about
Somebody was spending real money to make it do so. Unlikely for a false flag.
That doesn't tell you anything about who paid for that sponsored content.
How much circumstantial evidence do you need?