351–360 of 515 posts
Is GitHub going to take itself down when one of their employees goes to Iran for holiday and logs into their GitHub account? If not, then why are they treating others with such contempt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the pressure by the EU and China on US companies to enforce local laws globally (GDPR, RTBF, Taiwan), I don't see how Github, operating in the US, as a US company, has any chance absolving itself of enforcing US laws and regulations (though in this specific case they appear to have overreacted, likely due to regulatory enforcement via algorithm and not common sense). If you expect US companies to respect GDPR a…
EU is not forcing American companies to enforce their laws for third party companies operating on non-EU market. Also, American company does not have to follow GDPR for Iranian customers. EU wants American companies to follow GDPR when acting in EU market.
So are we not going to talk about how economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? How these sanctions directly and indirectly cause an increased poverty gap and negatively impact the living standards? How the governments of these sanctioned countries magnify this economic pressure to prevent people from revolting and to entrench t…
> economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? It's not as if this isn't commonly known. But when you view sanctions as a de-escalatory alternative to outright conflict, which also has huge negative impacts on the people of the countries in conflict.
GitHub: "Lets rename master to main because Inclusion & Equality" Also GitHub: "sorry you're from a wrong country"
git branch -m master main
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, and I'd agree. But these companies are private entities. I can disagree with them but I can't force them to do anything, aside from not using them. Economic sanctions are introduced by governments, supposedly from and for the people.
> companies are private entities. Private entities chartered and regulated by the government, of course.
So many dimensions come to play here. 1. There's the obvious legal aspect i.e. how these laws are framed and interpreted. 2. Then there's the geopolitical aspect. Is it fair to impose sanctions on Iran. 3. There's another aspect around GitHub policy that asks if an entire organization be banned for the location of one team member. 4. Finally, there's the aspect of relinquishing control. Your app development is on the…
"Decentralisation" of Git has been a running joke since the beginning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Surely enforcing your politics outside of your jurisdiction is the whole point of an embargo?
As a government, yes. As a commercial company, operating on a market outside of US jurisdiction, please explain me the legal basis for that (if you can).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be overreach by GitHub, but given the severity of the sanctions lawmakers have set for if they happen to get it wrong, I'd like to at least blame lawmakers for creating such a risky situation.
I work with sanctions. I think both can be easily blamed. Similarly to DMCA notices, most companies opt to for the path of least resistance ( it is cheaper to blanket ban than to investigate ). Yes, politicians are to blame for creating the environment, but companies deserve flak for taking the path that is bad for the customer ( unless they are sufficiently well-heeled ). My thoughts are my own. I do not represent a…
Sanctions, compliance, etc. is a messy ordeal to manage (both technically and operationally), and the ways laws are written with so many intricacies and dependencies doesn't make it easier.
Because only 1 instance of violation could lead to fines equivalent to a person's salary, often the systems are made to be overly sensitive and less investigative to figure out whether a 'hit' is actually a false-positive because that also takes time/money and still carries potential risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are conflating marked share with quality of offering. Indeed there are viable local options for many of these things. Heck, the reason why European companies have so little relative marked share, is because they serve smaller, domestic, markets. A Danish webshop provider probably has a better offering for a webshop for servicing the Danish market. It probably has better support for Danish accounting, bett…
Do Danes have unique server needs compared to the rest of the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to discuss hypothetical violations so I won't do that. It absolutely is a safe course of action to do a blanket ban. That said, is it reasonable to assume violation based on IP address ( and that is what seems to have happened here )? Banks don't automatically (typically ) block MUHAMMAD JIHAD even if they may end up questioning it.
That’s because the combined business of all Muhammads and their employers is way more than 210$/month AND it would be illegal, and Bad PR™, to ban them from your business based just on their culture/name. Otherwise they would have been “derisked” out of service.
Now note that that we are discussing a name, a commmon, but somewhat reliable, if mutable, driver of our identity. Now compare it to IP address and tell me, which one is a better predictor of who you are.
Unless, we are assuming IP is a proxy for location, which is another story.