22 ms·
Nadella: Microsoft will sell war tech to democracies to “protect freedoms”
- tibbydudeza 8y agoAs we have seen in the case of the US even democratically elected govts do reprehensible stuff like the Iraq invasion and the Contras.
- turndown 8y agoI think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. I don't think Nadella's argument is particularly persuasive, but we should all understand our way of life is worth fighting for, and in those justified circumstances our government should have the required tools to carry that job out, no matter how unfortunate war is.
- NaOH 8y ago> I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. The unwritten corollary to this is that we elect better officials. And in that regard, this week's episode of the EconTalk podcast on cronyism had an interesting line I've since been pondering. Paraphrased, "It's not that we should get better people, we need to incentivize bad people to do good things rather than incentivize good people to do bad things." http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism
- marton78 8y ago> our way of life is worth fighting for With our way of life being using up the planet's resources in an unprecedented speed, exploiting third world countries and waging war around the globe?
- turndown 8y agoThis is the most boring type of strawman not worth responding against, but I will say that when I mean our way of life, I mean the rights and guarantees as codified in our constitution, our representative democracy, and the many, many freedoms we take for granted in our country without ever thinking about the cost it takes to enjoy them.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoSo if India and Pakistan, both democracies, go to war over Kashmir, whose way of life is worth fighting for?
- Fnoord 8y agoThat's great for investors on both side of the war. If you can invest in both countries, you get double the profit from the war.
- pritishc 8y agoPakistan is a faux-democracy at best. Their army controls the government[1], and I would rather not talk about their proxy war against India and terrorist funding, given my strong bias towards my country. Perhaps a neutral party can elaborate. India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be worth fighting for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoMy point is that democracies (including flawed ones) can go to war against each other over things that have very little to do with either party's way of life. Not every war is about protecting democracy or anyone's fundamental freedoms against undemocratic enemies. Nationalism, disputed territories, conflicts involving minorities, these things cause wars, and democracy doesn't necessarily fix it. Sometimes the world is a bit more complex than a Hollywood movie.
- saiya-jin 8y agoI tend to agree with you, I love India and even if it has many flaws (I think corruption is the worst), it is fascinating and very diverse place which is considered biggest democracy in the world. Can't comment on Pakistan since I was never there, but I would expect more homogeneous place. And I guess everybody heard about ISI supporting terrorist groups and fueling problems in Kashmir. I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)
- raxxorrax 8y agoIf you undermine these values while "defending" yourself, your argument falls apart. It is just a strategical approach to defend your way of life. This has nothing to do with defending democracy. On the contrary and not only for the soldiers you send into war. Microsoft is losing relevance heavily right now so they take more compromises than before.
- turndown 8y agoHence my qualification of 'justified'. There have been dozens of times since WW2 where the US has incorrectly justified violence for economic benefit, and these instances are deeply wrong, and I wish they had not happened. But in certain situations where are freedoms are in jeoprody, it is ignorant to say that force could not be justified. Does this happen often? No. But when it does, it must be done well, and hopefully with as little bloodshed as war necessitates.
- paganel 8y ago> like the Iraq invasion Democracies have a weak point though, because not always does the majority stand behind the "good" side of history. For example the US electorate was 80% in favor of the Iraq invasion in May 2003, a month or two after the invasion had begun and approximately at the same time with the infamous "Mission accomplished" speech. I've always compared the Iraq war with the equally infamous Athenian Sicily Expedition [1], which had got the majority support of the Athenian citizens at its start but which in the end proved to be disastrous for the Athenian democracy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition
- sonnyblarney 8y agoIn many parts of the world, all choices are bad, including the choice to do nothing. MSFT is not selling weapons, so long as they are not selling to tyrants, I think they're in the clear. If they were selling tanks this would be a more complicated discussion.
- devmunchies 8y agoFreedoms such as killing millions a year with opiates? It’s all about letting the big global companies continue to operate in those countries, right?
- berbec 8y agoWhile I admire pacifists, the sad reality of the world is sometimes you have to stand and fight. Is making tech for war in the interest of ending the conflict, and dying, as quickly as possible "for the greater good"?
- colordrops 8y agoStand up and fight for what? Most people are completely blind to the realities and driving forces behind various conflicts. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times et al are usually not telling an accurate or comprehensive story.
- kbenson 8y agoAnd yet, we have fairly good evidence from the relatively recent past that sometimes you do need to stand up and fight, and it may be for the safety of yourself, your faimily or even for the safety of people across the world. WWII was a thing, the Nazi party came to power and started pushing their agenda, and the holocaust actually happened. And the farther back in history you go, the more it becomes apparent that it's not really all that much of a statistical outlier except in scale. That we don't need to continuously make sure we're strong enough to defend ourselves is a fiction that people in countries with strong governments that enforce the rule of law like to tell themselves. That's only possible because the government is there to be the ultimate arbiter, and as libertarians will quickly point out, that's only possible because they have, and ruthlessly enforce, their monopoly on violence (to our collective benefit, IMO). No such thing exists for nations between themselves, except for pacts like the U.N. or NATO, and that's not a solution, it's just kicking the problem up the chain so we can act like it's not our problem.
- throwaway_9168 8y ago>> WWII was a thing, the Nazi party came to power and started pushing their agenda, and the holocaust actually happened Indeed it was, but many people act like the whole thing just sprung up from a vacuum. There was an entire history which went before, and at least libertarians seem to attempt to dig a little deeper. If you don't want to hear out the prologue to these kinds of dastardly events, there isn't much difference between your acceptance of propaganda and your supposed adversary's. "Because the politics of Europe so clearly had nothing to do with America, it took a massive propaganda campaign to solidify American involvement. This allowed an overwhelming victory for the allies and the disastrous peace agreement that followed. So much of the ensuing horror of the 20th century, Scott and Woods contend, resulted directly from Wilson’s foreign policy." https://scotthorton.org/interviews/11-12-18-tom-woods-on-world-war-i/ https://scotthorton.org/interviews/11-12-18-tom-woods-on-wor... Yes, I am sure someone will come and point out some nutty thing some or the other libertarian said. You don't have to be in complete agreement with someone's viewpoint just to hear out their views.
- pasta 8y agoA lot of people are switching banks because they don't like that their current bank is investing in war. I think Microsoft is going to lose users over this. Not much for sure, but it's naive to think people don't care.
- 3327 8y agoYeah not really actually, people don't care everyone is on their phones reads this once and then moves on. Its not the 70s any more, just because people say on social media they are going to do something doesn't mean they are indeed following through... I do sincerely wish you were right, but sadly you are mistaken. And let's face it, The military is a big part of the American institution - you can disagree and argue against it but that will not change reality. They also have the biggest pocket book, so Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do business with them. If you disagree - leave Silicon Valley or those companies and join an NGO - I am sure they need technical help these days and cannot afford the talent.
- floe 8y ago> Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do business with them Really? Always? What about the Project Maven cancellation?
- m-p-3 8y agoAll I can foresee is the erosion of freedoms..
- ahartmetz 8y agoThe normalization of obvious lies in corporate communication. They are doing it for money and not selling to "bad" governments for maybe ethical, maybe PR, maybe staff protest reasons.
- eganist 8y agotl;dr: Microsoft will sell to any USA-approved entity because their number one goal is to maximize shareholder value as a USA-based corporation. Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety of non-profits, this is their only goal. (probably missed a few, but you get the point) --- Obvious point aside, here's a challenge: if this bothers you as an entrepreneur, start your next idea off as a public benefit corporation or equivalent, or roll your existing firm into one. Tread new ground. Need inspiration? https://www.navapbc.com https://www.navapbc.com Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation
- skybrian 8y agoIn practice, there are a lot of ways to arguably maximize shareholder value, so this gives management a lot of leeway to do what they want. For-profit company cultures can differ drastically. The real driver is stock options and other ways that employees (including the CEO) get rewarded for making the stock go up. This does not necessarily mean that it's the company's only goal any more than getting paid necessarily makes you a soulless worker drone who will do anything for money. But it does tend to encourage people to celebrate profits.
- eesmith 8y agoIf (for example) half the employees leave in protest, causing shareholder value to drop, then the decision was a bad one, yes? If that happens with Microsoft, should the shareholders file suit since the management decision to do weapons development caused the shareholder value to decrease, yes? That is, by protesting and potentially quitting (or 'work to rule' or any of many well-known practices), the employees have the ability to determine what "maximize shareholder value" means.
- anticensor 8y ago> Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety of non-profits, this is their only goal Their primary goal. Major difference. The other is business.
- natch 8y agoDemocracies can be just as bad as anything else if there is no protection from tyranny of the majority.
- a_imho 8y agoI would not really call recycling some elements of the ruling elite every x years a democracy either.
- raxxorrax 8y agoWho else has a better claim?
- HunOL 8y agoDemocracy is exactly about majority.
- natch 8y agoYes, obviously. And sometimes that’s the problem.
- anoncake 8y agoA tyranny of the majority is still better than a tyranny of the minority. At least more people get to be tyrants.
- senectus1 8y agoIts an interesting conundrum. I dont have an answer for it. Democracies are (supposed to be) representative of the masses. A few angry employee's in a tech company are not. Democratically speaking they dont have a right to demand a company doesn't make software/hardware used in war. Shareholders on the other hand are a perfectly acceptable place to object.
- rajacombinator 8y agoWhy is anyone surprised by this? For Microsoft employees to suddenly worry about the morality of their employer is somewhat laughable.
- eesmith 8y agoWho is surprised? To the contrary, it seems that you are the one who is surprised about the idea employees should and can put pressure on management. You write "suddenly worry about the morality of their employer", but presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development, because: > The employees behind the open letter say that even with these contracts, Microsoft itself was never engaged in weapons development; it was selling general-purpose software that others then used and adapted. The IVAS contract is perceived to be different, with Microsoft, rather than third parties, working to increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality. Perhaps that's the surprise? Should all employees expect that their employer can become a weapons developer, and not give any pushback should that happen?
- kmlx 8y ago> presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development can’t people pack up and leave? i mean, there’s probably a queue of other people who will happily work for MS.
- eesmith 8y agoCan't Microsoft not do weapons development? I mean, there's probably a bunch of other profitable projects they can work on. But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more. While there is the view that the only possibilities are to follow orders or quit, that isn't very effective management practice for programming. In the intermediate, it means people are no longer enthusiastic about their work, leading to worse quality. People in most fields, not just software development, do more than their job specifically requires. "Rule-to-work" is one way to push back, by doing only what one's job requires. In extremes, it leads to strikes, as you see see with teachers in the last few years. Or even sabotage. These all might reduce shareholder value.
- crb002 8y agoNaughty naughty. Selling to DOD is one thing. Becoming an international arms dealer makes me willing to divest Microsoft and everything Microsoft hosted. Ahem Github Linkedin ...
- ralph84 8y ago> Some 250 staff are said to have signed the letter So 0.2% of 134,944. That takes vocal minority to a whole new level.
- torstenvl 8y agoThe fact of the matter is that China and Russia are building their weapons capabilities, including in the cyber realm. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-is-poised-to-add-a-new-hypersonic-nuclear-warhead-to-its-arsenal/2018/12/26/e9b89374-0934-11e9-8942-0ef442e59094_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-is-poised... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_China https://m.mic.com/articles/26889/cyber-war-china-is-the-cyber-espionage-capital-of-the-world https://m.mic.com/articles/26889/cyber-war-china-is-the-cybe... Both countries have shown an increasing tendency to use armed force either to sabre-rattle... https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-missiles-challenge-us-in-south-china-sea/4389362.html https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-missiles-challenge-us-in-s... ... or to directly challenge the sovereignty of other states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_... There is plenty of room for disagreement about policy in the various Western governments generally and the U.S. in particular. But of the potential superpowers, there is only one that respects freedom and democracy, and there is only one that doesn't wage wars of aggression to expand their borders. Either U.S. software engineers can help the U.S. catch up in this realm, or they can allow these two totalitarian states to lead. There is no third option.
- blub 8y agoAre the many defense contractors and SW engineers already working on this so useless that Microsoft has to help them out? Fucking Microsoft which is a convicted monopolist and has started behaving like a spyware company is going to protect our freedoms? I guess one can sell any bullshit if they nicely wrap it in patriotism.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- KozmoNau7 8y ago>"But of the potential superpowers, there is only one that respects freedom and democracy" Look at the state of US society and politics, completely run over by propaganda news outlets, infested with cronyism and lobbyism. Elected representatives who repeatedly flaunt the laws, utter corruption right to the top of both major parties, institutional racism, war on drugs, the rise of extreme right wing militia groups, the list goes on and on. The US is a totalitarian state run by corporate interests.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bunnycorn 8y agoMeanwhile, I've seen today a video of a new product from a Russian manufacturer (Kalashnikov), of Kamikaze drones. I applaud Nadella.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- elken 8y agoI'm just surprised people think that the Hololens is a useful piece of technology.
- baybal2 8y agoIt is useful as a toy. Toys are a big industry.
- siruncledrew 8y agoImagine getting a Windows update pop up while in the middle of a firefight in the desert.
- Calashle0202 8y agoSo how come SpaceX employees don't revolt over the use of their rockets for military payloads? Elon Musk is literally out there launching a satellite surveillance network to help the military spy on the entire planet, meanwhile Microsoft employees are getting hung up on a headset that will maybe improve their aim, or maybe lead to fewer deaths in the field. Besides that, was there ever a time where Microsoft wasn't selling their services to the U.S. military? It's hard to resist a contract from the world's largest employer.
- taejo 8y ago> So how come SpaceX employees don't revolt over the use of their rockets for military payloads? Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down? Zat's not my department, says Wernher von^W^W SpaceX employee #4512.
- dchest 8y agoUgh, your point is that if workers of one company don't mind building weapons, the workers of another company should also shut up and build weapons?
- jcims 8y agoWell, to be fair, if you apply for a job at an orbital rocket company without realizing who is going to be paying for your services, you’re probably not bright enough to actually make the cut.
- jhanschoo 8y ago"Si vis pacem, para bellum"—if you wish for peace, prepare for war.
- crazy_monkey 8y agoDemocratic, war-mongering governments and peoples indeed...
- hguhghuff 8y agoIf/when the missiles start flying, I’d like to feel that the US systems are built by America’s best technology companies, which yes, very much includes Microsoft. Other large, economically successful countries are spending huge on military tech and have their best people on it. You’ll care when it matters. If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military, and the need for countries to project power, then you should perhaps consider working in a different corner of the it industry. If anything, the world is heading to a much more militarized future. Rising economic powers are spending vast amount of money on building modern naval capability. Only a fool would think that now is the time to turn away from the countries need for increased military capability.
- pjc50 8y agoIs nobody else here old enough to remember the 80s and MAD? The doctrine back then was that once the missiles start flying you have about four minutes left before every city in the US is nuked. We have to be realistic about the actual threats, which are either trivial or overwhelming. There's no scope for the US to fight a roughly equal opponent.
- rjf72 8y agoSkirmish and proxy wars can be carried out without turning to the nuclear option. For instance Vietnam was in part a proxy war between the US and China -- both nuclear powers at the time. Even outright war might not result in the nuclear option if it looks unlikely to threaten a nation's sovereignty. There is asymmetric warfare. Imagine a scenario where a large unit of e.g. terrorists attack a city. Imagine what just 100 armed and armor wearing individuals could do. This would likely result in a military response and the skill/capability of the military is largely going to determine the outcome and 'efficiency' there. Finally there is also the issue that nuclear deterrence may not always be a thing. Anti-missile technology is constantly improving and we could develop even more efficient means of developing any sort of concentrated nuclear threat. If and when we reach this time, the world's geopolitical equilibrium would radically shift overnight and trying to play catch-up from that point would be unlikely to be effective.
- Tepix 8y agoI don't like it. But it raises another problem: What's a democracy? Is Turkey a democracy? If not, why not? Is it a flawed [1] democracy then? [1] Like the US? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-democracy-rated-donald-trump-not-fully-democratic-us-president-report-the-economist-a8195121.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-de...
- hguhghuff 8y agoDemocracy is a dictatorship of the majority. The problem with our form of democracy is that once voted in, the winner is given power. Instead, power should be expendable. Votes that a party wins should be able to be used to either to push through legislation or to defeat legislation, and once those votes are used, they’re gone. This would lead politicians to be much more careful about how they expend their power, spending votes in what they really want, and spending votes to stop what they really disagree with. Closely related concept is that it should not be “one person, one vote”. Instead, everyone should get 100 or 1000 votes to distribute across the politicians/parties that represent their many interests and values.
- jcims 8y agoHow would they reup and why would we punish the representatives that participate in more decisions vs less?
- hguhghuff 8y agoPunish? I dint understand. Politicians get votes to spend, either on backing or opposing legislation.
- Sammi 8y agoOnly if you assume a voting system like First Past The Post where the winner indeed takes all. May countries have voting systems where candidates and parties take proportional seats in parliament according to their votes. This means there is a need for coalitions and consensus seeking across in order to get anything voted through parliament.
- nbevans 8y agoI admire Nadella for taking a hard line on this. It removes any uncertainty for the minority of employees that virtue signalled over it. They can take his offer to move to another department or they can quit or they can swallow their pride.
- HunOL 8y agoAgree. Such decisions should not be made because of vocal minorities.
- simonh 8y agoI understand why people are uncomfortable with this, but in the end I'm with Socrates. If we accept the protection and benefits of a society, it is incumbent on us to contribute to it's defence. Furthermore in a democracy we get to vote, and in doing so agree to be bound by it's outcome even if we disagree with it. That's the deal, like it or not. Of course that doesn't mean we can't protest, or campaign for a different outcome, or explore legal means to prevent or limit policies we disagree with. Those are legitimate forms of engagement, they're taking a stand and taking some personal moral responsibility I can respect. Ultimately though, our freedoms and those of our allies and neighbours have to be fought for if we are going to keep them. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed to stand. Russia's annexation of Crimea and bullying of Ukraine should not be allowed to stand. Britain's occupation of the Chagos islands probably shouldn't be allowed to stand either, it's not a perfect world. Of course there are extremely complex, dangerous issues that are hard to resolve out there. Those problems won't go away by refusing to think or worry about them and refusing to do anything about it. Inaction is just as much of a moral choice with it's own potentially catastrophic consequences. I'm not advising anyone what to do. Sure, make up your own mind. But I don't think it's obvious that refusing to engage is a morally superior position.
- raxxorrax 8y ago> Iraq's invasion of Kuwait Especially since "we" supplied Iraq with weapons in the hope he would use them against Iran. > could not be allowed to stand. heh...
- simonh 8y ago>Especially since "we" supplied Iraq with weapons in the hope he would use them against Iran. The US did not supply Iraq with weapons, they were mostly equipped by Russia. The US did supply some services such as high resolution satellite imagery, which was a mistake.When it looked like Iran might win the war, some restrictions were eased such as bans on supplying dual-use technologies. However the intent wasn't so much to support Iraq as it was to contain Iran. Messy for sure.
- jwr 8y ago
- okonomiyaki3000 8y agoIt sounds like they're doing this with very good intentions and so they will surely pave the way to... somewhere... a better world maybe? I don't know, that doesn't quite sound right...
- Golfkid2Gadfly 8y agoA lot of the “don’t want to work on killing people” rhetoric is arguably a bit naive. First, sometimes governments legitimately need to use weapons to defend us, and they don’t grow on trees. More relevant to big tech specifically, some of the technologies (facial recognition, AR etc.) can legitimately claim to help improve targeting (and thus reduce chances of killing innocent bystanders). It’s rarely black and white. At the end of the day, if you are an employee who (quite legitimately) is uncomfortable with it, is it ok to petition company should stop, as opposed to simply taking your labor elsewhere?
- seba_dos1 8y agoStallman: You have to protect freedom. Nadella: We've got it.
- porpoisely 8y agoI didn't realize microsoft was in the "protect freedoms" business. That's worrying. Last time someone tried to "protect freedoms", millions of innocent people's lives were destroyed. I'd have more respect for these people if they were honest. Say we want to sell war tech for money because it's good business. After all microsoft is a business right? And something tells me one of their first and best customers would be "democracies" like saudi arabia and china.
- m23khan 8y agocould this be tied to India and Pakistan conflict? Maybe Nadella senses $$$ for Microsoft given his connections with India.
- RickJWagner 8y agoThe contested sale of 100,000 HoloLens sets.... I think Quark has a hand in this, somehow.
- dplgk 8y agoAre we also upset about how many military computers run Windows?
- DyslexicAtheist 8y agoGithub is now a defense contractor