←back to thread

873 points helsinkiandrew | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dijit ◴[] No.45376462[source]
I think people don't tend to realise how authoritarian the internal structures of companies are.

They're effectively miniature dictatorships. Normalising removing services because a tenant does something you personally find disagreeable is fine in the moment, but what happens when it's someone you support? Like when they removed Office365 access for a member of the EU parliament.[0]

For me, this is more proof (not less) that I shouldn't rely on US tech giants. Not because I will be collecting data on a population to do god-knows-what with, but because someone believes themselves to be the moral authority on what the compute I rent should be doing and that moral authority can be outraged for the whims of someone completely random, for any reason.

[0]: https://www.aurasalla.eu/en/2025/05/26/mep-aura-salla-micros...

replies(6): >>45376970 #>>45377181 #>>45379798 #>>45380987 #>>45384885 #>>45405549 #
1. soraminazuki ◴[] No.45380987[source]
> because a tenant does something you personally find disagreeable

You do realize that the said tenant is massacring an entire population as we speak, right? Framing that as just something that's "disagreeable" is one hell of a euphemism.

The absolute bare minimum one can do is to not actively provide the technical means to carry out this atrocity, yet you claim it's only moral to do the exact opposite. This neoliberal fantasy that it's moral and good for society to let powerful corporations do whatever it wants is an absurdity not even worth refuting. But it's downright cruel and tone-deaf when it's used to justify taking part in an officially approved genocide.