8 ms·
I am seeing several kneejerk "Microsoft bad" reactions here, which HNers don't do for many other companies. I encourage many of you to read what is written. Th
by politelemon 1y ago
I am seeing several kneejerk "Microsoft bad" reactions here, which HNers don't do for many other companies. I encourage many of you to read what is written.
They listened to their internal staff and stakeholders and public pressure, and did terminated the contract instead of ignoring it or doubling down.
That is a good thing.
- n1b0m 1y agoThey fired staff who protested against the firm’s ties to the IDF.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoThat's a funny way to say "they fired staff that vandalized company property, broke into the CEO's office, and used an internal company website to publish and promote anti-company propaganda". That will get you fired from bussing tables or washing dishes, let alone a six-figure job at MS. Edit: Source on the last one; the first two were widely reported on in media: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/fired-microsoft-employee-encouraged https://lunduke.substack.com/p/fired-microsoft-employee-enco...
- nashashmi 1y agoOne protestor was fired after interrupting a CEO's speech.
- keanb 1y agoAnd?
- t1amat 1y agoYou might have 1A rights as an American but it seems to me the manner in which this person protested would be grounds for termination in many jurisdictions.
- thewebguyd 1y ago1A doesn't apply to private entities anyway. 1A protects against government prosecution for your speech, and the government may make no laws "abridging the freedom of speech." But your employer? They can put whatever rules and restrictions they want on your speech, and with at-will employment, can fire you for any reason anyway, at anytime. You can say whatever you want, but you aren't free from the consequences of that speech.
- throwaway74628 1y agoThis comment sums up well how the spirit of the law is not being upheld, given that the biggest players in government, finance, and the corporate world are working together hand in glove. >”Corporations cannot exist without government intervention” >”Some privates companies and financiers are too big to fail/of strategic national importance” >”1A does not apply to private entities (including the above)” >”We have a free, competitive market” I find it very difficult to resolve these seemingly contradictory statements.
- platevoltage 1y agoLiterally nothing to do with 1A
- BrenBarn 1y agoThat's because 1A only has to do with a limited subset of the actual concept of freedom of speech.
- duxup 1y agoI feel like interrupting a CEO's speech at a big conference is pretty well understood to be a social indicator of a high level of insubordination. I suspect the protestor knew that too. The consequences were appropriate, even if I might share some of the protestor's concerns.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago> insubordination Are we talking about the military or some company?
- duxup 1y agoI think that term can be / is used for individuals at companies.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago[dead]
- gmueckl 1y agoUS corporate culture has a stronger sense of hierarchy than many other countries. It is an environment where one can get fired quickly and suddenly and that instills a lot of obedience and discipline (if not outright fear) in employees.
- duxup 1y agoI don't even think you need a strong sense of hierarchy. The meaning of the word would apply anywhere.
- fluoridation 1y agoLOL. The military isn't the only organization with a hierarchy.
- rkachowski 1y agoYou feel that being fired is an appropriate consequence to interrupting a CEO?
- kayodelycaon 1y agoHalf the jobs I’ve worked, I’d be immediately fired if I interrupted a CEO’s speech. The other half, I’d be in serious trouble and I’d be first on any layoff.
- cm2187 1y agoI know a story of a guy who got fired for just talking to the CEO of his large company!
- snickerdoodle14 1y agoamerica sounds like such a hell-hole that would be a nice compensation package in any first world country
- mikestew 1y agoYou’re going to base an opinion on a third-hand story? That might not even be true just to illustrate a point? I know a guy that passed BillG in a hallway and said, “hey, Bill, how’s it hangin’?” (Saw him do it; I was mortified.) Just a bottom-tier IC at the time. 20 years later, he still works there. Still an IC, though, so make of it what you will. :-) So there, now you have another folksy anecdote to balance things out.
- cm2187 1y agoWell, not quite third-hand, the guy was working in my team. But not a US company, not in the US either though.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago[dead]
- rolph 1y agofailure to use acceptable method of interdepartmental communication ?
- mikestew 1y agoIf I interrupt the CEOs speech at a public conference, yeah, I fully expect to get canned. It’s not like this was an internal all-hands or summat.
- ecshafer 1y agoIf I did what the protestor did at an internal all-hands or summit I would expect to get canned as well. You can't go up yelling and interrupting the CEO. In an internal all-hands/summit situation you need to maintain decorum, if you have a point you wait until a QA session, then express your displeasure.
- tormeh 1y agoOh, it was an event with custoners invited? Yeah, that's grounds for dismissal anywhere, I'd think. Even in countries with strong labor laws you could just show the court the video recording of an employee doing willfull sabotage.
- progbits 1y agoOh no, is the CEO ok?
- n1b0m 1y agoSource?
- natebc 1y agohttps://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-protests-49a0dd5905a1cf16eb3e19a98ca17d50 https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-prote... There's a couple of sub links off of that one. Not sure if that's what GP was referring too but there is mention in there of employees being terminated related to protests
- belorn 1y agoI would also like to read the source for the last claim of that statement. The break-in is well established in multiple sources, and also documented on Wikipedia (citing one of those sources). CNBC also add that they planted microphones (using phones) as listening devices. "In the aftermath of the protests, Smith claimed that the protestors had blocked people out of the office, planted listening devices in the form of phones, and refused to leave until they were removed by police. " (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/microsoft-fires-two-employees-over-breaking-into-protests-at-its-presidents-office.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/microsoft-fires-two-employee...) Protestors (in associated with the firing) also projected "Microsoft powers genocide" on the office wall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nashadelic 1y agoThey've been raising the alarm for months. If this extreme action is what it took Microsoft to look into genocide and then terminate the contract, it was absolutely the right call
- Waterluvian 1y agoNot that you're implying this, but making an "absolutely the right call" does not in any way shield one from consequences. Heck, it's usually because one will be punished that doing the right thing is in any manner noble. Otherwise it's just meeting minimum expectations as a human.
- MomsAVoxell 1y agoAfter all, why would anyone want to work for a company which actively supports genocide.
- lo_zamoyski 1y agoSome people seem to think rioting and vandalism are acceptable behaviors. It's important that people engaging in such activity are dealt with swiftly and justly. Such behavior further encourages violence and destruction as acceptable behaviors in society, which they are not.
- blitzar 1y agoPardons all round then
- mossTechnician 1y agoThe United States has a history of rioting, vandalism, and violence. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind. The more important question is the contexts in which it is unacceptable, and who should be given the authority to swiftly deal with it - an authority that will itself require the ability to commit violence.
- thewebguyd 1y agoRioting and vandalism are unacceptable...until they aren't and are instead necessary. Is everyone so quick to forget that the rights we have today in the US were won through violence after all other methods failed? The 40 hour work week we enjoy today was also won through blood. Now, in this case between employees and Microsoft I'd agree, no, vandalism wasn't necessary at all. But when it comes to defending our rights and freedoms, there will come a day when its absolutely necessary, and it's just as valid of a tool as peaceful protest is in enforcing the constitution.
- dmix 1y agoThere’s been a couple studies showing that disruptive protests (blocking roads, yelling at people entering buildings, etc) cause public support for their cause to decrease or even increase opposition. If the ideas are good then support will build through effectively communicating those ideas. Being noisy is fine but there’s an obvious line that selfish activists cross. The sort of people who want their toys now and don’t want to patiently do the hard work of organically building up a critical mass. So they immediately start getting aggressive and violent in small groups. Which is counter productive.
- Forgeties79 1y agoEvery protest we praise in history broke the law at some point. “Promote company-hating propaganda” is an interesting way to describe what happened.
- kayodelycaon 1y agoI think laws enforced by the government are a difference in kind from social standards or company rules. Laws are backed by legal, physical violence.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoBuilding a website on internal Microsoft infra that ledes with a picture of "Azure Kills Kids" is beyond the pale.
- Forgeties79 1y agoThat’s a pretty low bar for “beyond the pale.” Company PR isn’t some sacred thing and these people paid a hefty price for their protest. They should be praised for their bravery even if you disagree with their message.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoI make no comment on their message but you cannot use company resources to do it and not expect consequences. Sorry if that is unclear. This is a fireable offense in nearly every company handbook in existence.
- Forgeties79 1y agoWhen did I say they shouldn’t expect consequences or that it wasn’t a fireable offense? The whole point of this discussion is that cries for people to “protest properly” are ridiculous and designed to make protests ineffective. Clearly I get that their jobs and more were at risk, hence why I said they were brave. The only thing unclear is where you got the impression I thought otherwise.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- duxup 1y agoI think how you protest matters. I can agree with protestors, also think their choices are bad.
- catlover76 1y agoI am deeply opposed to the Israeli military, and sympathetic to the cause of the employees, but as the other poster pointed out, they were legitimately fired. Moreover, their actions didn't improve anything and only serve as further fodder for painting their side here as radical.
- evolve2k 1y agoYes it’s a good thing AND we don’t need to be celebrating companies when they finally do the bare minimum. Nobody with any semblance of ethical, just or just plain being a basic good corporate citizen would say.. oh yeah mass surveillance of the comms of a whole population for money is in any way acceptable or ok. This shouldn’t be a tech side note this should be a total meltdown front page scandal. What a disgusting abuse of power by all involved.
- bhouston 1y ago> Yes it’s a good thing AND we don’t need to be celebrating companies when they finally do the bare minimum. I think we should give props here. This is an important step forward. Thank you Microsoft! I think we should protest when companies do things that are wrong and we should give them kudos when they make good moves. Carrot and stick. I am not fans of those that say because you did wrong things in the past, I will never recognize when you change and make good moves. I want to encourage more companies to correct their involvement in this.
- collinmcnulty 1y agoI agree. If we want our pressure campaigns to be successful, we need to reward companies that respond to them.
- BrenBarn 1y agoBut the question is do you want to actually reward behavior that is just less bad than before? Or should that reward just be in the form of less punishment? I agree the consequences should get better in relative terms, but I don't think bad behavior should be rewarded with a positive response, even if the behavior is less bad than before. It's like, if someone steals a million dollars and then steals a thousand dollars, you don't reward them for making progress.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 1y agoWhat kind of pressure campaign are we talking about here? And what kind of reward? Are we now buying Microsoft products because Microsoft's cloud storage is no longer allowed to be used in genocide, only Office and email? That's absurd. What this is about is public opinion, and that takes years and decades to change. And that's a good thing. If you change your tune after every Microsoft PR release, it's not you who's holding the carrot and the stick, it's Microsoft.
- nashashmi 1y agoThe Guardian last month reported a meeting between Microsoft CEO and Unit 8200. That means this comes from high level and they did not cancel because of protestors but because of media publicity.
- t-writescode 1y agoDid the protestors help the media publicity?
- colpabar 1y agoI really wonder if a company like microsoft has any real concern over people tweeting negative things about it. It seems like companies are finally realizing a lot of it can just be ignored, but with microsoft specifically, what’s the risk? Who in a position to deny ms enough money that they’d care or even notice is going to decide to do it based on people protesting?
- squigz 1y agoThe problem here is thinking that the only form of protest anyone ever engages in is tweeting things. Some people stop supporting companies they disagree with, both individually and, if they're able, with their own company.
- colpabar 1y agoBut that’s my point - who will do that? Who is going to go to their company’s CEO and convince them to put in the massive amount of effort to switch cloud providers? Who is going to say “I don’t think we should use Teams anymore” and actually be able to switch to something else? I have no idea if microsoft even cares about retail customers anymore, but are there really enough people who are going to boycott microsoft products (I honestly don’t know what those products even are) over this? I just don’t think they have anything to worry about. I personally think it’s good what they’re doing here, but I guess I’m too cynical to believe they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and I don’t think the real reason is that they’re worried about bad publicity.
- righthand 1y ago> did terminated the contract instead of ignoring it or doubling down This was after they ignored it and doubled down for almost 3 years*. What was the total gain in profits and how many Palestinians died during that time? You’re going to ignore the full cost because they did the least they could do almost 3 years later? * if the starting line is set to October 2022 attacks, if not how long were they making money off this contract?
- selimthegrim 1y agoOctober 2023
- mock-possum 1y agoM$ is bad, just not cause of this
- hashim 1y ago[flagged]
- jimbo808 1y agoI mean, they have thoroughly soiled their reputation with the US tech workforce by being the most egregious abusers of the H1B program.
- WhereIsTheTruth 1y agoWill Microsoft rehire the employees who were fired for protesting? No? Hmm, then you should not let Microsoft whitewash its record by taking credit for the very cause those workers were punished for defending
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Will Microsoft rehire the employees who were fired for protesting? One can be correct in theory and wrong in practice at the same time.
- ModernMech 1y agoYes, Microsoft was right in theory for firing the protestors, but wrong in practice because Microsoft should have listened to their employees before it got to the point they felt they had to mount a protest to get executives' attentions.
- thisislife2 1y ago> The project began after a meeting in 2021 between Microsoft’s chief executive, Satya Nadella, and the unit’s then commander, Yossi Sariel ... In response to the investigation, Microsoft ordered an urgent external inquiry to review its relationship with Unit 8200. Its initial findings have now led the company to cancel the unit’s access to some of its cloud storage and AI services. "Some" ... Microsoft's chief executive was involved in cementing a collaboration for a secret military / intelligence project with an AI component, to spy on people against whom a genocide is ongoing by their colonial occupiers. This only "ended" when the public became aware of it, for political and (possibly) legal reasons, clearly indicating that they would have continued with "business as usual" if the public hadn't become aware of it. What other Israeli projects are Microsoft hiding and supporting, that possibly aids Israel's genocide, is what concerns me ...
- gruez 1y ago>to spy on people against whom a genocide is ongoing by their colonial occupiers To be fair in 2021 you'd be laughed out of the room (or be in a DSA conference) if you called what was happening in Palestine a "genocide".
- jasonvorhe 1y agoTrue, the correct term back then would've been apartheid.
- evil-olive 1y ago> To be fair in 2021 you'd be laughed out of the room (or be in a DSA conference) if you called what was happening in Palestine a "genocide". you have a very narrow historical lens if you think a DSA conference in 2021 is the only place that has treated allegations of genocide seriously. I'd recommend reading through [0] which has a very nice chronological timeline. for example, way back in 1982 the UN General Assembly voted to declare the Sabra and Shatila massacre [1] an act of genocide. it was carried out against a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, by a militia allied with the Israeli military, and during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon: > In February 1983, an independent commission chaired by Irish diplomat Seán MacBride, assistant to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, concluded that the IDF, as the then occupying power over Sabra and Shatila, bore responsibility for the militia's massacre. The commission also stated that the massacre was a form of genocide. there's also a long history of "well...it's not genocide, because genocide only comes from the Geno region of Nazi Germany, everything else is sparkling ethnic cleansing" type of rhetoric: > At the UN-backed 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism, the majority of delegates approved a declaration that accused Israel of being a "racist apartheid state" guilty of "war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing". Reed Brody, the then-executive director of Human Rights Watch, criticised the declaration, arguing that "Israel has committed serious crimes against Palestinian people but it is simply not accurate to use the word genocide", while Claudio Cordone, a spokesman for Amnesty International, stated that "we are not ready to make the assertion that Israel is engaged in genocide" 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusatio... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ilt 1y agoIt has come a tad too late to be called a good thing.
- BrenBarn 1y agoThe problem is that if you're very very bad, you can do a good thing and still be very bad.
- hashim 1y agoWhat other reasons are Microsoft very very bad? Genuinely curious about what your definition of "very, very bad" is and whether it aligns with mine.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 1y agoSearch for "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
- hashim 1y agoSo the criticisms from the 90s that I mentioned in my other comment? Yeah, I prefer to live in the modern world. It isn't Microsoft that needs to be hit with antitrusts in 2025. It's Apple and Google. Live moves on, and in 2025, Microsoft is one of the more ethical tech companies around, unless you're one of the many sheltered people in tech that think targeted advertising is manifest evil that's on par with enabling a genocide.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 1y agoI'm 40. For me, the modern world didn't just start in 2019. And the list is additive. The fact that Microsoft has been on it since the 90s doesn't stop me from also listing Google, Apple, and Amazon.
- hashim 1y agoModern by definition means the modern day, I'm not sure what 2019 was but we don't get to redefine terms for our own use. The list is only "additive" if the criticisms still apply. Your presumably best example was a corporate strategy from the 90s. Companies, just like (most) people, change. 2025 Microsoft is pro-Linux and a much better force for good than most other tech companies, yet almost invariably I find the people triggered by the mention of Microsoft tend to be relatively quiet about and/or active consumers of Apple, Amazon, Google et al.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 1y agoThat's a very dishonest framing. The article contains some not particularly subtle relativizations in various places, e.g., “ability to use SOME of its technology,” which make it clear that Microsoft is not reacting decisively here in any way, but is trying to muddle through somehow and make a few publicly visible concessions. Furthermore, why do you think the reactions are knee-jerk? That implies a rather biased attitude on your part.
- tmtvl 1y agoIf we tally up all the good things Microsoft did and weighed them to some of the bad things, it'd be like weighing a few grains of sand versus Mount Olympus.