4 ms·

They didn't even resist/appeal the order? It is an EO, not a law. Goes to show just how subservient and feckless Microsoft is. Nominative determinism much?

otterley 1y ago
How would fighting it serve Microsoft?
whimsicalism 1y ago
the last three administrations (Trump I, Biden, Trump II) have shown a willingness to use the law to punish the companies of political opponents. in this light, many companies are going to be reluctant to challenge the feds here
a_bonobo 1y ago
You have a bunch of tech execs getting sworn in as lieutenant colonels for the Army Reserve, SF aligns itself with the White House just like Germany's big industry aligned itself with the NSDAP. It doesn't particularly matter whether an order is legal or not, it only matters if the ones in power want it.
- boredatoms 1y ago
  What would motivate them to join the army?
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Like the days of the British Army selling commissions, it's for corruption opportunities and cosplay.
  - vkou 1y ago
    Fascism is the last step in the merger between the state and corporate power, the state is currently trying its best to take the country there, and the sycophants who are ready to assist it are getting in line. And if you want to close your eyes and believe things aren't that dire (they are), at minimum you have to admit that this is a regime that is incredibly blatant and open in its corruption and embrace of the spoils system. You'd have to be an utter idiot[1] to not try to weasel in to get your hand into the public purse. --- [1] Or hold on to something resembling moral principles when mountains of money and power is at stake, which in that part of the business world is a synonym.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    It gives them a chance for grift. They're going into an "innovation" unit whose job is to get the Army (or DOD more broadly, but they're in the Army now) to select particular technologies moving forward. Naturally, they'll recommend whatever their employer produces, and recommend to their employer that they expand into other areas so they can get the Army to buy that as well later on. Good news, that sort of behavior is technically illegal even if the current administration is wildly corrupt already. So give it 4 years and they open themselves to the possibility of being courtmartialed for their grifting.
  - BLKNSLVR 1y ago
    The power that comes with military contract-type money, connections, and influence. That's the kind of situation that gives CEOs lifelong reputations (that they think it's in a good way).
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      Yup. All of those men will need to be investigated and, if appropriate, tried for corruption.
    - a_bonobo 1y ago
      The NSDAP-style alignments went both ways: if the industry bigwig joined the party, he got access to lucrative contracts and insider information. The NSDAP also helped strike down strikes for the bigwigs, and later, supplied slaves from concentration camps for cheap. In turn, the party got to deeply control the bigwig: don't toe the party line and you're either out, or you're in danger. Join the party and publicly demonstrate your allegiance to the leadership. See the secret industry meeting from 1933 as the prime example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_...
      - morkalork 1y ago
        It was a very mafia-like arrangement. Loyalty meant being rewarded with lucrative opportunities but it also meant you owed them and sooner or later they'd come back asking for one favour or another.
      - pavlov 1y ago
        Nazis were very good at making both industrialists and military feel rich. The German stock market went up like a rocket between 1933 and 1941. And the military higher-ups were bribed with constant personalized handouts. Hitler even paid a wealthy general’s entire divorce settlement from taxpayer funds, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_of_senior_Wehrmacht_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_of_senior_Wehrmacht_of... ” Such was the success of Hitler's bribery system that by 1942, many officers had come to expect the bestowing of "gifts" from Hitler and were unwilling to bite the hand that fed them so generously.[10] When Field Marshal Fedor von Bock was sacked by Hitler in December 1941, his first reaction was to contact Hitler's aide Rudolf Schmundt to ask if his sacking meant that he was no longer to receive bribes from the Konto 5 ("bank account 5") slush fund.” With the level of corruption in the current US administration, it seems entirely possible that it’s heading in a similar direction. For example, why shouldn’t Trump award a billion units of his crypto coin to loyal military leaders? What law prohibits that and who enforces it?
  - foogazi 1y ago
    FOMO
averysmallbird 1y ago
Not quite as clear cut. The EO triggers a national emergency under IEEPA, which is the basis of sanctions — so there is a well established legal underpinning. Unclear whether Microsoft has standing to challenge the designation of the ICC, and the courts give a lot of deference to the President on foreign affairs/national security. Microsoft is more “stuck” than “feckless” I think.
phendrenad2 1y ago
People really need to resist the urge to anthropomorphize corporations. Corporate behavior is well-established science at this point. They almost always do what is in their own financial interests. "Feckless" means "lacking initiative or strength of character". Corporations have one character: Making money. Fighting the government over a few user accounts has no short-term or long-term monetary value. It doesn't even win you a PR victory because it's unclear how many people support or don't support this.
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  50% of people do not support this. That’s a made up number. Trump has barely over 40%. He is an unpopular criminal who has shown time and again he will break the law. What even makes you think a criminal like this would win an election fairly?
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    That's a good point.
  - jeroenhd 1y ago
    Trump won the majority vote in an election that brought out a huge amount of voters compared to previous elections, and Republicans won every other government body. He's not unpopular and many people do support him, unfortunately. Best case scenario, the silent majority didn't bother to prevent Trump and his lackeys from taking over the American government. I don't think denying Trump's popularity is going to solve anything. America spoke out in support of this guy, twice, and it'll keep doing that unless the underlying issues are tackled. As for election fairness: I haven't seen any credible proof of large-scale election fraud, not when Biden won, not when Trump won.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      Trump won an election but the majority of his voters are anti-Israel; polls show all Republican demographics apart from boomers have a net-negative view on Israel (and a non-trivial amount are outright anti-Semitic).
perihelions 1y ago
- "It is an EO, not a law." Still, backed by pretty solid statutory authority[0] (one created by Democrats and signed into law by Carter, in point of fact). Congress wanted the President to have this power. I'll get scorched for this, but: I never once read a word of complaint about separation-of-powers, when Biden was sanctioning objects left and right for his own, self-declared, national-security emergencies. I don't recall reading once, i.e. at the time of the sweeping China or GPU sanctions, a peep of protest along the lines of, "This should *not* be something a President should be able to do unilaterally! That's far too much discretionary power in the hands of one person! Congress should have to debate it". We didn't invent an imperial presidency in 2025; it's the agglomeration of decades of civic apathy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom... ("International Emergency Economic Powers Act"; C-f "14203" for the current topic)
- threetonesun 1y ago
  It’s a result of Congress being unable to actually debate anything or fundamentally deadlocked for decades. While many Americans do not want the President to have this power, likely more don’t want Congress to have it either.
- boston_clone 1y ago
  You not reading that commentary and it not taking place are two very different things! Plenty of folks expressed constitutionality concerns for several types of actions that the Biden admin took. However, you may find that the enacted sanctions hold up significantly better under meaningful scrutiny than Trump cutting off email for one person investigating the war crimes and evidence of genocide in Gaza at the hands of our proxy state in the ME.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    Israel is not a proxy state, they self-determine oftentimes against what their allies have wanted them to do.
    - 1y ago

otterley 1y ago

How would fighting it serve Microsoft?

whimsicalism 1y ago

the last three administrations (Trump I, Biden, Trump II) have shown a willingness to use the law to punish the companies of political opponents. in this light, many companies are going to be reluctant to challenge the feds here

a_bonobo 1y ago

You have a bunch of tech execs getting sworn in as lieutenant colonels for the Army Reserve, SF aligns itself with the White House just like Germany's big industry aligned itself with the NSDAP. It doesn't particularly matter whether an order is legal or not, it only matters if the ones in power want it.

boredatoms 1y ago
What would motivate them to join the army?
- pjc50 1y ago
  Like the days of the British Army selling commissions, it's for corruption opportunities and cosplay.
- vkou 1y ago
  Fascism is the last step in the merger between the state and corporate power, the state is currently trying its best to take the country there, and the sycophants who are ready to assist it are getting in line. And if you want to close your eyes and believe things aren't that dire (they are), at minimum you have to admit that this is a regime that is incredibly blatant and open in its corruption and embrace of the spoils system. You'd have to be an utter idiot[1] to not try to weasel in to get your hand into the public purse. --- [1] Or hold on to something resembling moral principles when mountains of money and power is at stake, which in that part of the business world is a synonym.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  It gives them a chance for grift. They're going into an "innovation" unit whose job is to get the Army (or DOD more broadly, but they're in the Army now) to select particular technologies moving forward. Naturally, they'll recommend whatever their employer produces, and recommend to their employer that they expand into other areas so they can get the Army to buy that as well later on. Good news, that sort of behavior is technically illegal even if the current administration is wildly corrupt already. So give it 4 years and they open themselves to the possibility of being courtmartialed for their grifting.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  The power that comes with military contract-type money, connections, and influence. That's the kind of situation that gives CEOs lifelong reputations (that they think it's in a good way).
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Yup. All of those men will need to be investigated and, if appropriate, tried for corruption.
  - a_bonobo 1y ago
    The NSDAP-style alignments went both ways: if the industry bigwig joined the party, he got access to lucrative contracts and insider information. The NSDAP also helped strike down strikes for the bigwigs, and later, supplied slaves from concentration camps for cheap. In turn, the party got to deeply control the bigwig: don't toe the party line and you're either out, or you're in danger. Join the party and publicly demonstrate your allegiance to the leadership. See the secret industry meeting from 1933 as the prime example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_...
    - morkalork 1y ago
      It was a very mafia-like arrangement. Loyalty meant being rewarded with lucrative opportunities but it also meant you owed them and sooner or later they'd come back asking for one favour or another.
    - pavlov 1y ago
      Nazis were very good at making both industrialists and military feel rich. The German stock market went up like a rocket between 1933 and 1941. And the military higher-ups were bribed with constant personalized handouts. Hitler even paid a wealthy general’s entire divorce settlement from taxpayer funds, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_of_senior_Wehrmacht_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_of_senior_Wehrmacht_of... ” Such was the success of Hitler's bribery system that by 1942, many officers had come to expect the bestowing of "gifts" from Hitler and were unwilling to bite the hand that fed them so generously.[10] When Field Marshal Fedor von Bock was sacked by Hitler in December 1941, his first reaction was to contact Hitler's aide Rudolf Schmundt to ask if his sacking meant that he was no longer to receive bribes from the Konto 5 ("bank account 5") slush fund.” With the level of corruption in the current US administration, it seems entirely possible that it’s heading in a similar direction. For example, why shouldn’t Trump award a billion units of his crypto coin to loyal military leaders? What law prohibits that and who enforces it?
- foogazi 1y ago
  FOMO

averysmallbird 1y ago

Not quite as clear cut. The EO triggers a national emergency under IEEPA, which is the basis of sanctions — so there is a well established legal underpinning. Unclear whether Microsoft has standing to challenge the designation of the ICC, and the courts give a lot of deference to the President on foreign affairs/national security. Microsoft is more “stuck” than “feckless” I think.

phendrenad2 1y ago

People really need to resist the urge to anthropomorphize corporations. Corporate behavior is well-established science at this point. They almost always do what is in their own financial interests. "Feckless" means "lacking initiative or strength of character". Corporations have one character: Making money. Fighting the government over a few user accounts has no short-term or long-term monetary value. It doesn't even win you a PR victory because it's unclear how many people support or don't support this.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago
50% of people do not support this. That’s a made up number. Trump has barely over 40%. He is an unpopular criminal who has shown time and again he will break the law. What even makes you think a criminal like this would win an election fairly?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  That's a good point.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  Trump won the majority vote in an election that brought out a huge amount of voters compared to previous elections, and Republicans won every other government body. He's not unpopular and many people do support him, unfortunately. Best case scenario, the silent majority didn't bother to prevent Trump and his lackeys from taking over the American government. I don't think denying Trump's popularity is going to solve anything. America spoke out in support of this guy, twice, and it'll keep doing that unless the underlying issues are tackled. As for election fairness: I haven't seen any credible proof of large-scale election fraud, not when Biden won, not when Trump won.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    Trump won an election but the majority of his voters are anti-Israel; polls show all Republican demographics apart from boomers have a net-negative view on Israel (and a non-trivial amount are outright anti-Semitic).

perihelions 1y ago

- "It is an EO, not a law." Still, backed by pretty solid statutory authority[0] (one created by Democrats and signed into law by Carter, in point of fact). Congress wanted the President to have this power. I'll get scorched for this, but: I never once read a word of complaint about separation-of-powers, when Biden was sanctioning objects left and right for his own, self-declared, national-security emergencies. I don't recall reading once, i.e. at the time of the sweeping China or GPU sanctions, a peep of protest along the lines of, "This should *not* be something a President should be able to do unilaterally! That's far too much discretionary power in the hands of one person! Congress should have to debate it". We didn't invent an imperial presidency in 2025; it's the agglomeration of decades of civic apathy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom... ("International Emergency Economic Powers Act"; C-f "14203" for the current topic)

threetonesun 1y ago
It’s a result of Congress being unable to actually debate anything or fundamentally deadlocked for decades. While many Americans do not want the President to have this power, likely more don’t want Congress to have it either.
boston_clone 1y ago
You not reading that commentary and it not taking place are two very different things! Plenty of folks expressed constitutionality concerns for several types of actions that the Biden admin took. However, you may find that the enacted sanctions hold up significantly better under meaningful scrutiny than Trump cutting off email for one person investigating the war crimes and evidence of genocide in Gaza at the hands of our proxy state in the ME.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Israel is not a proxy state, they self-determine oftentimes against what their allies have wanted them to do.
  - 1y ago