←back to thread

873 points helsinkiandrew | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
efitz ◴[] No.45377418[source]
I think Cloud providers should be common carriers. I don’t think that it is a good thing when a company can make an arbitrary decision and disable functionality that you have put millions of dollars and thousands or tens of thousands of person hours into.

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.

replies(6): >>45377528 #>>45377703 #>>45377770 #>>45377956 #>>45378131 #>>45378629 #
1. freeopinion ◴[] No.45377956[source]
The concept of common carriers in not a wartime concept. Should occupied Ukranians keep providing service to their occupiers on principle?

Aside from the common carrier concept, operating a significant war-supporting facility makes you a significant target. And I don't just mean a target for criticism. Datacenters risk a security threat on a whole new level if taking them out is important to war operations.

Would you criticize a commercial port in the Black Sea if it turned away Russian warships? Harboring Russian warships makes it extremely likely that your port could become the target of missile strikes. If you want to remain an innocent bystander, don't harbor combatants.

This is not a statement in support of any side of any war.