6 ms·

Reading the article you can call this a protest, because yes it does fit under that definition because it's quite broad, but it doesn't fit the normal idea of w

Reading the article you can call this a protest, because yes it does fit under that definition because it's quite broad, but it doesn't fit the normal idea of what we would consider a protest. This was not people who decided not to attempt the 50th anniversary and then go outside and conduct a peaceable protest. You could equally use the word disruptors to describe what they did. As Microsoft said it seems that they work quite willful in their disruption. People seems to have forgotten how to be effective at making changes. They should have first gone and made their grievances known in a private way to the appropriate people. Get the attention of leadership in a way that is respectful and they in turn will be more willing to hear what you have to say. If that doesn't work you begin to broaden out your objections to get others involved and to make the issue more well-known. Seems people have forgotten that part abd skip those initial steps going straight to the disrupting ways. As if they are babies throwing a tantrum. I don't know if it's because they were never given discipline when they were younger and so throwing the tantrum is the way that they've learned gets them what they want. I think the protesters do have a valid point but I'm with Microsoft on this one. They didn't try and have their grievances handled in a productive way by going to those and making their case they started by just being disruptive jerks. Even if they have the most valid point in the world, the way they presented it should get them tossed out.

bbqfog 2y ago
That doesn’t work and these people have increased awareness of Microsoft’s role in the genocide. We’re literally talking about it now because if their sacrifice. Anyone clutching pearls over this was pro-genocide in the first place and not worth catering to.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > these people have increased awareness of Microsoft’s role in the genocide. We’re literally talking about it now because if their sacrifice Every Fortune 500 company does business in Israel, which means it directly or indirectly supports their military. If someone is just learning that I'm not sure how useful they are to anyone's cause.
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    A lot did business with Nazi Germany too. Corporations need to be forced to behave in a moral fashion.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > lot did business with Nazi Germany too And then we told them not to and they (mostly) stopped. The correct way to effect this change is politically. Not at a company anniversary party.
      - mackyspace 2y ago
        We're talking about it, so it seems pretty effective to me! The "won't people think of Bill Gate's feelings!" arguments aren't very compelling, just makes you look like you want to be complicit.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We're talking about it, so it seems pretty effective to me! Talking about an issue is productive if you need to bring awareness to it. There is nobody on the planet who isn't aware that something is happening in Israel and Gaza. And when an issue is this divisive, calling attention to it mobilises both sides. (See polling following the protests at Columbia, for example. Awareness went up. But net support increased more for Israel than Palestine because people just defaulted to their priors.)
        mackyspace 2y ago
        Support for Palestinians has increased steadily since Israel started its latest genocide. I think you're confusing Zionist PR expenditures with actual support, which is rapidly dwindling for Israel. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-to...
- elmerfud 2y ago
  It may not have worked but it would have been the right way to do it. Then after it didn't work they could do more meaningful things that are higher visibility. There's a right order in which to do things which lends credence to what you're doing. Right now they're just viewed as a bunch of idiotic disruptors because they didn't do things in the right order.
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    Is targeting families with ai “the right way to do it”? Office decorum doesn’t even register in importance.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    Whenever there's protests, there's always people complaining that the protesters are doing it the wrong way - that's the history of protests and inevitably, the people complaining about the protesters end up on the wrong side of history (e.g. The Suffragettes went completely against the "rules of protesting" with such things as letter bombs).
nonrandomstring 2y ago
[flagged]
- elmerfud 2y ago
  I didn't know you wore pants when you were sitting in your mom's basement trolling. There is a way to do things so you're looked at as honorable and respectful and then there's a way to do things where you're looked at like a disruptive thug. One gets you respect from even those who may disagree with your point of view, because they can still respect you as a person. The other way you're just looked upon as a disruptor who doesn't have any place in a civilized decent society. Whatever your point is was lost in how you tried to convey it. Just like your point about pants is lost in whatever you're trying to convey.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    I can't think of a single company (besides maybe a tiny start-up where you know all of leadership) where airing ethical grievances through a private, respectful, official channel would accomplish anything. If you're at the point where you're objecting so strongly to something your company is doing on ethical grounds, you're 99% of the way out the door already. Better to just quit and if asked, quietly note the reason in your exit interview. Banding together and politely petitioning your company is not going to change anything--your employer is not a democracy. And obviously protesting your employer publicly is not going to help, either. I didn't quite soil my pants like that other guy, but I at least mildly chuckled at the thought of telling my manager in my next 1:1 that I object ethically to some business my 10,000+ person company is engaged in.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    Hey you seem rattled by that. I'm just humorously, and therefore much more kindly pointing out something that could sound cruel if put plainly; that you have a naive and distorted understanding of human relations and offer really, really bad advice. But you seem stuck on appeasing tyranny, so good luck with that. It never worked. I'll be in my mom's basement if you need me :)
therealpygon 2y ago
> “They should have first gone and made their grievances known in a private way to the appropriate people.” Why did you automatically assume they didn’t? Do you have special knowledge of the situation or did you just assume that was the case solely on the words of a company press release? Clearly the company would have no reason to use the same tired recycled excuses in press releases of “you should have talked to us privately” every company claims after a protest (which often get proved out as false in later employment lawsuits). It seems odd that someone would write, “this is especially true when I've witnessed how Microsoft has tried to quell and suppress any dissent from my coworkers who tried to raise this issue” if the issue had never been raised or discussed prior. Do they deserve to be fired? Sure. Does that mean protesting and disrupting a celebration was wrong after many people had tried to voice opposition of their use of AI this way, I don’t know that I can agree. If you have ever worked at a Fortune 500 company, you would know that you might as well scream into a void if you think a company is going to reverse their decision to make more profit because of some whiney employees who don’t want to “just do your job”. Sometimes disruptive actions are the only way to bring attention to the things companies do, as can be seen by this being covered in the press , which means more attention has been brought to the issue, which was exactly the goal was it not?
- runarberg 2y ago
  Seeing the footage I very much doubt Ibtihal Aboussad hadn’t addressed this before via a more proper channel. She addressed Mustafa Sulema by first name, she talks as if she knows he knows what she is talking about, as if she has addressed this to him personally multiple times before. Reading about her history and role in No Azure for Apartheid it is very unrealistic to assume this is the first action they did. Instead of just posting speculation, I went and checked, and https://noazureforapartheid.com https://noazureforapartheid.com was archived on the wayback machine in November last year https://web.archive.org/web/20241115041755/https://noazureforapartheid.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241115041755/https://noazurefo... where they list 4 simple demands. It is unlikely they never sent those demands to Microsoft‘s senior management over those 4+ months.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
> Get the attention of leadership in a way that is respectful "Excuse me sir, but I've just become aware that you signed a deal to provide tech support for an army that is conducting a genocidal campaign. Would you please consider rethinking this contract? Thanks." That's respectful, but completely pointless. Microsoft knows who its doing business with.
amitport 2y ago
Even if they made steps, and were ignored, because management disagrees with them or for whatever reason, they still don't get a pass for disrupting normal business. It is a private company, you can say your opinion, but if you disrupt, you are gone. Very sane and simple.

bbqfog 2y ago

That doesn’t work and these people have increased awareness of Microsoft’s role in the genocide. We’re literally talking about it now because if their sacrifice. Anyone clutching pearls over this was pro-genocide in the first place and not worth catering to.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> these people have increased awareness of Microsoft’s role in the genocide. We’re literally talking about it now because if their sacrifice Every Fortune 500 company does business in Israel, which means it directly or indirectly supports their military. If someone is just learning that I'm not sure how useful they are to anyone's cause.
- bbqfog 2y ago
  A lot did business with Nazi Germany too. Corporations need to be forced to behave in a moral fashion.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > lot did business with Nazi Germany too And then we told them not to and they (mostly) stopped. The correct way to effect this change is politically. Not at a company anniversary party.
    - mackyspace 2y ago
      We're talking about it, so it seems pretty effective to me! The "won't people think of Bill Gate's feelings!" arguments aren't very compelling, just makes you look like you want to be complicit.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We're talking about it, so it seems pretty effective to me! Talking about an issue is productive if you need to bring awareness to it. There is nobody on the planet who isn't aware that something is happening in Israel and Gaza. And when an issue is this divisive, calling attention to it mobilises both sides. (See polling following the protests at Columbia, for example. Awareness went up. But net support increased more for Israel than Palestine because people just defaulted to their priors.)
        mackyspace 2y ago
        Support for Palestinians has increased steadily since Israel started its latest genocide. I think you're confusing Zionist PR expenditures with actual support, which is rapidly dwindling for Israel. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-to...
elmerfud 2y ago
It may not have worked but it would have been the right way to do it. Then after it didn't work they could do more meaningful things that are higher visibility. There's a right order in which to do things which lends credence to what you're doing. Right now they're just viewed as a bunch of idiotic disruptors because they didn't do things in the right order.
- bbqfog 2y ago
  Is targeting families with ai “the right way to do it”? Office decorum doesn’t even register in importance.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  Whenever there's protests, there's always people complaining that the protesters are doing it the wrong way - that's the history of protests and inevitably, the people complaining about the protesters end up on the wrong side of history (e.g. The Suffragettes went completely against the "rules of protesting" with such things as letter bombs).

nonrandomstring 2y ago

[flagged]

elmerfud 2y ago
I didn't know you wore pants when you were sitting in your mom's basement trolling. There is a way to do things so you're looked at as honorable and respectful and then there's a way to do things where you're looked at like a disruptive thug. One gets you respect from even those who may disagree with your point of view, because they can still respect you as a person. The other way you're just looked upon as a disruptor who doesn't have any place in a civilized decent society. Whatever your point is was lost in how you tried to convey it. Just like your point about pants is lost in whatever you're trying to convey.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I can't think of a single company (besides maybe a tiny start-up where you know all of leadership) where airing ethical grievances through a private, respectful, official channel would accomplish anything. If you're at the point where you're objecting so strongly to something your company is doing on ethical grounds, you're 99% of the way out the door already. Better to just quit and if asked, quietly note the reason in your exit interview. Banding together and politely petitioning your company is not going to change anything--your employer is not a democracy. And obviously protesting your employer publicly is not going to help, either. I didn't quite soil my pants like that other guy, but I at least mildly chuckled at the thought of telling my manager in my next 1:1 that I object ethically to some business my 10,000+ person company is engaged in.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  Hey you seem rattled by that. I'm just humorously, and therefore much more kindly pointing out something that could sound cruel if put plainly; that you have a naive and distorted understanding of human relations and offer really, really bad advice. But you seem stuck on appeasing tyranny, so good luck with that. It never worked. I'll be in my mom's basement if you need me :)

therealpygon 2y ago

> “They should have first gone and made their grievances known in a private way to the appropriate people.” Why did you automatically assume they didn’t? Do you have special knowledge of the situation or did you just assume that was the case solely on the words of a company press release? Clearly the company would have no reason to use the same tired recycled excuses in press releases of “you should have talked to us privately” every company claims after a protest (which often get proved out as false in later employment lawsuits). It seems odd that someone would write, “this is especially true when I've witnessed how Microsoft has tried to quell and suppress any dissent from my coworkers who tried to raise this issue” if the issue had never been raised or discussed prior. Do they deserve to be fired? Sure. Does that mean protesting and disrupting a celebration was wrong after many people had tried to voice opposition of their use of AI this way, I don’t know that I can agree. If you have ever worked at a Fortune 500 company, you would know that you might as well scream into a void if you think a company is going to reverse their decision to make more profit because of some whiney employees who don’t want to “just do your job”. Sometimes disruptive actions are the only way to bring attention to the things companies do, as can be seen by this being covered in the press , which means more attention has been brought to the issue, which was exactly the goal was it not?

runarberg 2y ago
Seeing the footage I very much doubt Ibtihal Aboussad hadn’t addressed this before via a more proper channel. She addressed Mustafa Sulema by first name, she talks as if she knows he knows what she is talking about, as if she has addressed this to him personally multiple times before. Reading about her history and role in No Azure for Apartheid it is very unrealistic to assume this is the first action they did. Instead of just posting speculation, I went and checked, and https://noazureforapartheid.com https://noazureforapartheid.com was archived on the wayback machine in November last year https://web.archive.org/web/20241115041755/https://noazureforapartheid.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241115041755/https://noazurefo... where they list 4 simple demands. It is unlikely they never sent those demands to Microsoft‘s senior management over those 4+ months.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

> Get the attention of leadership in a way that is respectful "Excuse me sir, but I've just become aware that you signed a deal to provide tech support for an army that is conducting a genocidal campaign. Would you please consider rethinking this contract? Thanks." That's respectful, but completely pointless. Microsoft knows who its doing business with.

amitport 2y ago

Even if they made steps, and were ignored, because management disagrees with them or for whatever reason, they still don't get a pass for disrupting normal business. It is a private company, you can say your opinion, but if you disrupt, you are gone. Very sane and simple.