3 ms·

This kind of thing can kill Slack or other networks because if you have a team of 100 people and just one can't use the platform, you'll switch. The network eff

This kind of thing can kill Slack or other networks because if you have a team of 100 people and just one can't use the platform, you'll switch. The network effect seems likely to work in reverse in this case. Beyond that I find it outrageously unethical.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> Beyond that I find it outrageously unethical. What, complying with national and international sanctions and erring on the side of caution? Losing part of your customer base is preferable over getting fined to the tune of hundreds of millions of USD.
- malloryerik 8y ago
  If the sanctions demand this, then the sanctions are outrageously unethical. If the sanctions don't explicitly demand it and banning ethnic Iranians is just "erring on the side of caution" then yes, sorry, but Slack is being outrageously unethical. Even if the sanctions do demand it, to me this is a reason to seriously consider either moving Slack to another jurisdiction like Canada, the EU, Switzerland, etc., or proudly face the fine. What's the alternative? Just hide your Iranian/Persian colleagues and friends under the digital rafters? It's plain wrong, and I refuse to be on that side of history. If Slack needs to risk a massive fine then that's their duty, so yes, face the fine, take it to the Supreme Court. To be honest, doing anything else is unpatriotic as well as unethical.
  - thinkloop 8y ago
    > consider either moving Slack to another jurisdiction like Canada, the EU, Switzerland I wouldn't put Canada in the same company as the EU or especially Switzerland, Canada is generally very happy to play ball on these matters.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    > then that's their duty, so yes, face the fine, take it to the Supreme Court No, it's definitely not. What's with the hyperbole? Do you consider every single person and company in the US unpatriotic and unethical then because these sanctions exist? We need less corporate involvement in politics. If you don't like the laws then you are free and welcome to participate in the government to change them but expecting a private company to go to the Supreme Court (!) over sanctions is just ridiculous.
- jstanley 8y ago
  > What, complying with national and international sanctions and erring on the side of caution? Yes.
- bborud 8y ago
  She/He makes a valid argument so I think a downvote is uncalled for. As someone else pointed out: if anything is unethical here, it is the sanctions. Ensuring your company operates within the law is a business decision and not everyone has the ability to go toe to toe with the government.
  - wccrawford 8y ago
    The brigade here is too strong to listen to any reasons against this. If it were my company and the potential downside of not closing accounts was personal jailtime, I'd absolutely err on the side of caution and close any account that seemed like it might land me in jail. Yes, people would get pissed off. But I'm not going to jail for them. The real problem here is that Slack's support is horrible and there's no way to talk to them about an account closed in error.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

> Beyond that I find it outrageously unethical. What, complying with national and international sanctions and erring on the side of caution? Losing part of your customer base is preferable over getting fined to the tune of hundreds of millions of USD.

malloryerik 8y ago
If the sanctions demand this, then the sanctions are outrageously unethical. If the sanctions don't explicitly demand it and banning ethnic Iranians is just "erring on the side of caution" then yes, sorry, but Slack is being outrageously unethical. Even if the sanctions do demand it, to me this is a reason to seriously consider either moving Slack to another jurisdiction like Canada, the EU, Switzerland, etc., or proudly face the fine. What's the alternative? Just hide your Iranian/Persian colleagues and friends under the digital rafters? It's plain wrong, and I refuse to be on that side of history. If Slack needs to risk a massive fine then that's their duty, so yes, face the fine, take it to the Supreme Court. To be honest, doing anything else is unpatriotic as well as unethical.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  > consider either moving Slack to another jurisdiction like Canada, the EU, Switzerland I wouldn't put Canada in the same company as the EU or especially Switzerland, Canada is generally very happy to play ball on these matters.
- manigandham 8y ago
  > then that's their duty, so yes, face the fine, take it to the Supreme Court No, it's definitely not. What's with the hyperbole? Do you consider every single person and company in the US unpatriotic and unethical then because these sanctions exist? We need less corporate involvement in politics. If you don't like the laws then you are free and welcome to participate in the government to change them but expecting a private company to go to the Supreme Court (!) over sanctions is just ridiculous.
jstanley 8y ago
> What, complying with national and international sanctions and erring on the side of caution? Yes.
bborud 8y ago
She/He makes a valid argument so I think a downvote is uncalled for. As someone else pointed out: if anything is unethical here, it is the sanctions. Ensuring your company operates within the law is a business decision and not everyone has the ability to go toe to toe with the government.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  The brigade here is too strong to listen to any reasons against this. If it were my company and the potential downside of not closing accounts was personal jailtime, I'd absolutely err on the side of caution and close any account that seemed like it might land me in jail. Yes, people would get pissed off. But I'm not going to jail for them. The real problem here is that Slack's support is horrible and there's no way to talk to them about an account closed in error.