Microsoft blocks Israel’s use of its tech in mass surveillance of Palestinians

I am seeing several kneejerk "Microsoft bad" reactions here, which HNers don't do for many other companies. I encourage many of you to read what is written.

They listened to their internal staff and stakeholders and public pressure, and did terminated the contract instead of ignoring it or doubling down.

That is a good thing.

They fired staff who protested against the firm’s ties to the IDF.

That's a funny way to say "they fired staff that vandalized company property, broke into the CEO's office, and used an internal company website to publish and promote anti-company propaganda".

That will get you fired from bussing tables or washing dishes, let alone a six-figure job at MS.

Edit: Source on the last one; the first two were widely reported on in media:

https://lunduke.substack.com/p/fired-microsoft-employee-enco...

Some people seem to think rioting and vandalism are acceptable behaviors.

It's important that people engaging in such activity are dealt with swiftly and justly. Such behavior further encourages violence and destruction as acceptable behaviors in society, which they are not.

Rioting and vandalism are unacceptable...until they aren't and are instead necessary.

Is everyone so quick to forget that the rights we have today in the US were won through violence after all other methods failed? The 40 hour work week we enjoy today was also won through blood.

Now, in this case between employees and Microsoft I'd agree, no, vandalism wasn't necessary at all.

But when it comes to defending our rights and freedoms, there will come a day when its absolutely necessary, and it's just as valid of a tool as peaceful protest is in enforcing the constitution.

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 don’t want to patiently do the hard work of organically building up a critical mass. So they immediately start getting aggressive and violent in small groups. Which is counter productive.

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.

There is nothing wrong with being seen or heard. Instead it is that being violently disruptive tends to lose you support.

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.