> In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services

> In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights organizations — often citing the language from our own justification back to us. So, that's the reason then? It becomes hard to justify also not shutting down activists or dissidents and such. But why can't they just say "no"? They are a US company, if someone from some authoritarian regime wants them to make logical or consistent decisions or points out some "hypocrisy", they can still shrug and say "so what, we wanted to terminate that service, but we won't terminate this other nonprofit organization's service you want us to, tough luck". Or, perhaps, they do want to have a nice relationship with those authoritarian regimes, and keep getting business from them...