
The Case Against Microsoft and GitHub - UkiahSmith
https://sneak.berlin/20200307/the-case-against-microsoft-and-github/
======
politelemon
This is incredibly narrow black and white view, it's full of mental
gymnastics, leaping to conclusions and putting words in their mouths. I know
that HN is collectively biased against MS, but this particular piece is poorer
than usual.

The original premise for getting away from their services is the PRISM slide.
Microsoft is one organization in that list. The others are Google, Yahoo,
Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. To focus on one and pretty much
leap into blaming them for ICE's abuses is unobjective and incredibly biased.
ICE does not exist in a technological vacuum devoid of FB, iPhones, and Skype.

If author truly cares they should either drop all companies mentioned or do
the civil thing and be objective in their assessment. I predict that the
likely conclusion will be: all large companies are complicit and that it's
entirely a gray area. It's entirely possible to be good and evil at the same
time.

Large companies often work as a loose collection of departments most of whom
don't know what anyone else is doing (the nature of growth), so they end up
with situations where leadership has certain focus topics and some management
has other focus topics. What changes over time is marketing and the narrative
that companies want to push out.

~~~
zzo38computer
I have no problem with Microsoft selling PowerPoint to the military (although
it does not mean I endorse Microsoft, or PowerPoint, or the military; I merely
mean that if someone is selling a product and some customer wishes to buy it,
then they can do that). It is not the provider's fault what the customer is
doing with the products, I should think.

But, their collaboration with NSA for illegal mass spying, is certainly a bad
thing to do. They have "been letting the feds read whatever they like out of
it without a warrant for the last dozen years", which is no good, and
especially if their terms of service does not mention this. (But even if they
mentioned in their terms of service, this still doesn't make it good.)

"It's entirely possible to be good and evil at the same time." Yes, I believe
that, and unfortunately, too often people ignore this.

------
smitty1e
> providing Windows NT to aircraft carriers like the USS Yorktown.

Navy vet here:

USS Yorktown (CV-10), an Essex-class aircraft carrier commissioned in 1943
(museum ship since 1975)

You mean:

USS Yorktown (CG-48), a Ticonderoga-class cruiser commissioned in 1984
(awaiting scrapping)

Via
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown)

~~~
brownbat
> Navy vet here

Article blithely suggests that support to the Navy is tantamount to mass
murder. Vet calmly ignores that nonsense and simply provides an update for
accuracy of ship and hull designation references.

By the way, thank you for, among other things, keeping shipping lanes safe,
which in turn makes global trade a possibility, which in turn has lifted
millions out of poverty worldwide.

~~~
smitty1e
When the basic facts aren't checked, the rest of the argument collapses.

And you and everyone who gave far more than I are welcome for all of the joy
received.

------
saagarjha
I'm actually fairly undecided on the GitHub/ICE thing, largely because it
doesn't make logical sense to me as something we should be doing in general
(this is an open invitation for someone to provide an explanation, if they're
so inclined…) The crux of my issue with it is that even if we assume "ICE is
bad" GitHub makes software that is generally useful to everyone. Why are we
asking for _this particular contract_ to be cancelled? Will doing this help
improve the situation in any way? Why are we mad at GitHub specifically, and
not e.g. McDonalds which ICE might order food from, or Staples which ICE buys
office supplies from? I fail to see why we should just arbitrarily ask certain
companies that provide generally useful services to stop interacting with
entities we disagree with…

~~~
sneak
> _Why are we asking for this particular contract to be cancelled?_

We are asking for there to be negative consequences in general for companies
who decide to operate with no moral or ethical compass. It's not about this
contract: it's about sending a message to companies that collaboration with
those who torture and murder is not okay, and will cost them business and
retention.

Taking on customers entirely uncritically should not be without market risk.
"I dunno man, I just sell hosting" is not an acceptable position.

Censorship isn't okay, but freedom of association is, and companies need
incentives to exercise it to fire particular customers doing evil, and
disincentives to turning a blind eye to how their products and services are
being used.

To say this is just about "entities we disagree with" is to miss the point, I
think. This isn't about "problematic speech", or the standard left/right
claims of bias or censorship, or any other kind of the routine partisan tribal
complaints you read about regularly. This is about _concentration camps_.
Right here, in the United States.

------
onyva
Main points since the article renders strangely for me on the iPhone:

Collaboration with US military for conducting mass murder

Collaboration with NSA for illegal mass spying on innocent people

Collaboration with ICE who runs concentration camps

Drop Microsoft. Drop GitHub. Drop LinkedIn. Drop Azure. Drop Windows.

~~~
sjroot
Bummer. I was hoping for a more feature/engineering-oriented article.

I recently started the switch from GitHub to GitLab, both for myself and my
company. Generally boiled down to a wider feature set for a better price.

------
stareatgoats
If the facts check out then this article might be what is needed to reboot the
anti-MS movement. Well written and adequately furious.

Problem: is there are list of companies that are not providers to the US
military and/or ICE, i.e. companies that do not take such jobs because of
moral stances? If there are none then what are we left with?

------
pergadad
I agree on most/all points. There are many more suspicious issues about MS and
how they treat you data.

A small inconsistency worth pointing out: the author has a linkedin link in
his bio...

~~~
sneak
Click it: the link target points to the post you just read. I decided to
update it to the rationale given here instead of just silently removing it, so
that people who use LinkedIn can read why they won't find me there.

The profile at the link's text is getting removed this week, once I migrate my
contacts.

------
tzs
From the footer:> Unfadeable, so please don't try to fade this.

What does that mean?

~~~
zzo38computer
I am curious too. I don't know what "Unfadeable, so please don't try to fade
this." means either. (The best I can find is that it appears to be song
lyrics, although I don't know what is the significance of that, nor why it is
written there or what it means there.)

