• Bjonay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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).

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Sorry government, I can’t enforce your sanctions, my ToS don’t allow me”

      Do you really think this works?

      • Bjonay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          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.

          • Bjonay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            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?

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              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.

              • Bjonay@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                13 hours ago

                Nayara were the ones operating/supplying a sanctioned country, not Microsoft, so what legal basis could the EU have against Microsoft?

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  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.

                  • Bjonay@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    “The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so.” <-- This is what’s strange, and new.

                    Companies supplying companies - it’s an order of magnitude beyond the targets of the sanctions.

                    It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.

                    I’m all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn’t breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.

    • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.