471–480 of 894 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It is not a lie. It is so extreme that it has merited its own Wikipedia page [0], but don't trust that, read the citations. Leaders[1] statements[2] have been chronicled calling for genocide. It is happening in both word and action. Resisting an occupying force is not genocide. [1] https://amnesty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Amnesty-Intern... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20250916081026/https://www.ohchr... [0] h…
I think that the only reasons that a cloud provider should be permitted to use to justify termination of service, are illegal activity (in the country of service), non-payment, or attempting to harm or disrupt the service.
I am in no way condoning anything that Israel is doing, just like I wasn’t condoning what people on Parler were saying when AWS axed them in 2021.
No matter how much you like what the people in charge are doing today or who they’re doing it to, sooner or later someone will take the reins who decides that you are the target.
Same with banks, credit card companies, etc. if you are incorporated and your business is to support commerce, you should keep your thumb off the scale.
I guess time to buy more Oracle or Google stocks? They can easily provide more than needed, especially Oracle which is very friendly to Israel and Ellison is a big supporter of IDF (large donations to "Friends of the IDF" non-profit). Here is a link in case anyone wants to donate https://www.fidf.org to this amazing organization.
makes sense to do if you support genocide
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s been a couple studies showing that disruptive protests (blocking roads, yelling at people entering buildings, etc) cause public support for their cause to decrease or even increase opposition. If the ideas are good then support will build through effectively communicating those ideas. Being noisy is fine but there’s an obvious line that selfish activists cross. The sort of people who want their toys now and d…
The classic "an effective protest is one that is neither seen nor heard". Which is just ahistorical. Civil rights in the US was not passed because black folks explained to white people that they are people deserving the same rights as them. I hate this white washing of history as a series of peaceful movements that everyone agreed with.
You are posing a false dilemma where the only thing a person can do to voice there opinion is to destroy or disrupt things.
That's not true though. Instead you can simply voice your options. You can put out manifestos, publish articles in the newspaper, post to social media, or even talk to people in person.
All those methods are how speech and ideas are normally distributed in a normal society. And if people aren't convinced by what you say, then it is time for you to get better arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is a conflict that the victim can choose to end anytime they want isn't a genocide, no matter how UN tries to twist one of the legal definitions into something that can be interpretated as one.
Boy I would love to hear how the innocent Palestinians who are starving and whose homes have been destroyed can end this conflict at any time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that’s my point - who will do that? Who is going to go to their company’s CEO and convince them to put in the massive amount of effort to switch cloud providers? Who is going to say “I don’t think we should use Teams anymore” and actually be able to switch to something else? I have no idea if microsoft even cares about retail customers anymore, but are there really enough people who are going to boycott microsoft…
> are there really enough people who are going to boycott microsoft products Maybe not, but some is better than none, and I'll continue to push more people to do it, rather than tell them nothing they do matters. > over this? Maybe it's not just this. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the user's back. Or maybe the next thing is. My point was to address your belief that they're too big for anyone to make any differe…
Not sure what you mean by "what HN will say to this", but for me the answer is clear - they are, they can, and they often do. As do their employees - or at least they push in the direction which is better aligned with their values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, unfortunately this is what happens when you have people who are constantly critical of Microsoft based on what they know of the company from the 90s and 00s, it devalues genuine modern criticisms and makes all criticism meaningless.
> this is what happens when you have people who are constantly critical of Microsoft based on what they know of the company from the 90s and 00s There are more than a couple of us who have Office or Teams imposed on us. There is plenty to complain about that is current and most definitely valid.
[1] Not sure what they could actually make unusable by revoking licenses, blocking logins, and whatnot. It probably also matters how quickly the effects are felt, Azure would be gone immediately but I am not sure how often Office checks whether its license has been revoked, if at all. If license checks make things stop working over weeks and months, it would still not be pretty, but it would provide at least some time to prepare and avoid the worst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are there really enough people who are going to boycott microsoft products Maybe not, but some is better than none, and I'll continue to push more people to do it, rather than tell them nothing they do matters. > over this? Maybe it's not just this. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the user's back. Or maybe the next thing is. My point was to address your belief that they're too big for anyone to make any differe…
> (I put this last because I know what HN will say to this, but: are CEOs and other executives not people too? Can they not make principled moves either?) Not sure what you mean by "what HN will say to this", but for me the answer is clear - they are, they can, and they often do. As do their employees - or at least they push in the direction which is better aligned with their values.
I fully expect some form of cynical "No" as an answer.
I originally had phrased it, "Are CEOs not humans too?" which might make it clearer what I expected :P