Really, really dishonest to demonize Microsoft who are in the middle of this. And I say that as someone who hates Microsoft and most of what they do! But this was intentionally painful sanctions decided on by the governments of 27 member countries. 🤷♂️ Don’t sell to Russia…
I think the main thing to focus on is govs should realize they need to ditch Windows, cause what’s stopping dumbass America (Tr*mp) from filling a sanction against a country he doesn’t like that week?
Your framing is inconsistent with the information provided in the story. Actually, I think your version is more deceptive than the original, although both could be made more transparent, too.
Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though. Unless their TOS specifically cover rthis scenario, which I doubt.
The article implies Microsoft is prepared to admit breach of contract terms, rather than risk EU distrust (or further distrust, after the Khan/ICC debacle).
It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
If both US and EU foreign policy can dictate who suddenly gets cut off from Microsoft services, trust in those services will erode.
After denying Outlook access to Khan due to (non-judicial) US sanctions against the ICC, multiple European public and private orgs are implementing exit strategies from Microsoft and all providers with a US presence.
The reason leveraging Microsoft as a foreign policy weapon works is because they dominate the market, and Eorope have grown complacent since end of WW2. All thta seems to now be changing.
It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.
You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.
Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.
There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:
In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.
If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU’s demands.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
It’s more like “getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it”. Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn’t undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.
I don’t know why you’re acting like this is such a strange thing.
Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren’t allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.
Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though.
that should be true, but for some reason, these companies are hiding their glee behind governments as they go above and beyond what the sanctions require.
Really burying the lead there. They were shut off due to government sanctions, not arbitrarily by Microsoft.
49% owned by Rosneft while another 49% are owned by “UCP” (Russia’s United Capital partners). Basically a 100% russian refinery in India…
*burying the lede (it’s a term from old press printing)
Most style guides and standards accept either spelling, especially when writing for general audiences.
For strict, formal writing, “lede” is still preferred.
https://getproofed.com.au/writing-tips/idiom-tips-bury-the-lede-or-bury-the-lead/
Not everywhere is America.
I agree with your statement and simultaneously find it hilarious thrt it is in response to a comment with an Australian link.
It’s burying the lead. As in, you put metal in the ground.
Really, really dishonest to demonize Microsoft who are in the middle of this. And I say that as someone who hates Microsoft and most of what they do! But this was intentionally painful sanctions decided on by the governments of 27 member countries. 🤷♂️ Don’t sell to Russia…
I think the main thing to focus on is govs should realize they need to ditch Windows, cause what’s stopping dumbass America (Tr*mp) from filling a sanction against a country he doesn’t like that week?
Your framing is inconsistent with the information provided in the story. Actually, I think your version is more deceptive than the original, although both could be made more transparent, too.
Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though. Unless their TOS specifically cover rthis scenario, which I doubt.
The article implies Microsoft is prepared to admit breach of contract terms, rather than risk EU distrust (or further distrust, after the Khan/ICC debacle).
It is if they want to operate in the country imposing the sanctions.
*27 countries
“Sorry government, I can’t enforce your sanctions, my ToS don’t allow me”
Do you really think this works?
It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
If both US and EU foreign policy can dictate who suddenly gets cut off from Microsoft services, trust in those services will erode.
After denying Outlook access to Khan due to (non-judicial) US sanctions against the ICC, multiple European public and private orgs are implementing exit strategies from Microsoft and all providers with a US presence.
The reason leveraging Microsoft as a foreign policy weapon works is because they dominate the market, and Eorope have grown complacent since end of WW2. All thta seems to now be changing.
They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.
You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.
Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.
There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:
If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU’s demands.
It’s more like “getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it”. Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn’t undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.
Nayara were the ones operating/supplying a sanctioned country, not Microsoft, so what legal basis could the EU have against Microsoft?
I don’t know why you’re acting like this is such a strange thing.
Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren’t allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.
Which hits them harder it’s always just about the money. They won’t stop supporting genocide in other countries so fuck the capitalist pigs.
that should be true, but for some reason, these companies are hiding their glee behind governments as they go above and beyond what the sanctions require.