4 ms·

I don't understand where is the censorship. Here is the relevant quote: UNI’s demands were clear: either remove all material except the critique of Amazon or h

I don't understand where is the censorship. Here is the relevant quote: UNI’s demands were clear: either remove all material except the critique of Amazon or hide UNI’s funding. (It was suggested that Tech Inquiry wait six months before publishing its analysis of Microsoft and Google.) The funders don't want to be associated with the report because they don't support it. Remove their names from the report and publish it as much as you like.

math_and_stuff 4y ago
The censorship was of the Microsoft and Google portions of the report. Removing 100 pages of a 150 page report for political reasons is for sure still censorship. And if an organization funded a report, it is unethical to hide that information. It is absolutely standard to attach notices of non-endorsement after funding disclosures.
mike_d 4y ago
It also appears to be a nothingburger of a report. Governments want to upgrade their tech stack, look at moving to the cloud, and shockingly select one of the three largest cloud providers. I'm equally surprised that the military buys boots from a large volume boot company and not a boutique corner shoe shop.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  A nothingburger of a report, that if published, would provoke Microsoft to have UNI employees fired? That doesn't seem to add up.
  - mike_d 4y ago
    Yes. It sounds like Microsoft and UNI formed some sort of partnership or arrangement. Non-disparagement clauses are pretty standard when you enter into public arrangements, and it is also a bad look for UNI. I read some more of the paper and the core of the argument seems to be that it sucks no European company has a good cloud.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > It sounds like Microsoft and UNI formed some sort of partnership or arrangement. Non-disparagement clauses are pretty standard when you enter into public arrangements, and it is also a bad look for UNI. Such an agreement is worth reporting, not a "nothingburger"
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  A nothingbuger of a comment that says "x is nothing" when the post isn't about x. The post is not bringing the news that a customer chose a supplier.
braingenious 4y ago
Wait, what? “Remove data we don’t like, or alternatively remove our names” is two options of… removing data, be it Microsoft or the funder. If “take information out of your report” is not an attempt at censorship, what is?
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Hmm, is making an anonymous donation censorship? Is funding a report anonymously censorships? Is making an anonymous hacker news comment censorship? I honestly don't know.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Is there a difference between making an anonymous donation and making a public donation and then demanding it be made anonymous after the fact in order to support a narrative? I think those are two different things.

math_and_stuff 4y ago

The censorship was of the Microsoft and Google portions of the report. Removing 100 pages of a 150 page report for political reasons is for sure still censorship. And if an organization funded a report, it is unethical to hide that information. It is absolutely standard to attach notices of non-endorsement after funding disclosures.

mike_d 4y ago

It also appears to be a nothingburger of a report. Governments want to upgrade their tech stack, look at moving to the cloud, and shockingly select one of the three largest cloud providers. I'm equally surprised that the military buys boots from a large volume boot company and not a boutique corner shoe shop.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
A nothingburger of a report, that if published, would provoke Microsoft to have UNI employees fired? That doesn't seem to add up.
- mike_d 4y ago
  Yes. It sounds like Microsoft and UNI formed some sort of partnership or arrangement. Non-disparagement clauses are pretty standard when you enter into public arrangements, and it is also a bad look for UNI. I read some more of the paper and the core of the argument seems to be that it sucks no European company has a good cloud.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > It sounds like Microsoft and UNI formed some sort of partnership or arrangement. Non-disparagement clauses are pretty standard when you enter into public arrangements, and it is also a bad look for UNI. Such an agreement is worth reporting, not a "nothingburger"
Brian_K_White 4y ago
A nothingbuger of a comment that says "x is nothing" when the post isn't about x. The post is not bringing the news that a customer chose a supplier.

braingenious 4y ago

Wait, what? “Remove data we don’t like, or alternatively remove our names” is two options of… removing data, be it Microsoft or the funder. If “take information out of your report” is not an attempt at censorship, what is?

Thorrez 4y ago
Hmm, is making an anonymous donation censorship? Is funding a report anonymously censorships? Is making an anonymous hacker news comment censorship? I honestly don't know.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Is there a difference between making an anonymous donation and making a public donation and then demanding it be made anonymous after the fact in order to support a narrative? I think those are two different things.