> TIL that Microsoft is the least Israel-friendly of the big three clouds
This is a good thing.
American companies should not be allowing their tech to be used to in the gross ongoing human rights violations in Israel/Gaza/West Bank.
Google and Amazon knew their tech could be used for human rights abuses in Israel (their lawyers warned them so) but ignored that in favour of $$$ per the EFF:
The EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. That is verbatim off their website. It appears that this perfectly in line with their core mission.
Somewhat hard to be neutral when outgrowths of the Israeli state like the NSO Group and Canary Mission start taking a stand against privacy and free speech
This comment makes it sound like you are trying to belittle people who work at nonprofits to make yourself feel better about putting profits over people.
Yep. These nonprofits have a tendency of being abused for the personal causes of their staff. Clearly this isn’t part of their mission unless you go through some mental gymnastics.
As if voting changes anything beyond the color ("red"/"blue") of the paid-off figurehead in power
Voting hasn't been anywhere remotely close to real since the 20th century
> Fully agreed, but also a hard sell given that America itself does not recognize what is happening there as a genocide.
This has nothing to do with a declaration of genocide. Both Amazon and Google respectively have made commitments to not enable human rights violations:
Well clearly they didn't mean much, which is about what I expect from any corporate policy declaration such as. If you believed them anyway, congratulations on having far more faith in corporations than I do.
> Yeah but when you read the article it comes across less like 'Microsoft doesn't want its services used for ethics violations' and more 'The unethical genocide Israel is doing uses some servers in the EU exposing Microsoft to legal and regulatory issues'.
You are incorrect. Microsoft has made clear that it is related to all of its Azure services that were misused with regards to its terms of services, not just those in Europe.
Here is Microsoft's original statement when it began this investigation:
"The Guardian, on that date, reported that multiple individuals have asserted that the IDF is using Azure for the storage of data files of phone calls obtained through broad or mass surveillance of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Microsoft’s standard terms of service prohibit this type of usage."
Ok, so The Guardian was incomplete in its assumptions. But Microsoft's explanation also does not make sense - see how they have to support any war waged by the US government. They would have had to support the Vietnam war, if were were in that era back. Something does not add up here still.
> see how they have to support any war waged by the US government. They would have had to support the Vietnam war, if were were in that era back. Something does not add up here still.
I am so confused by these statements. Microsoft and other private companies do not have to knowingly violate human rights in the service of the US government whether it is war or not.
Agreed, but then Germany is also to be held liable as it supports Israel and allows the USA to use its bases there to bomb people in far-away countries. So there is a huge inconsistency here, IMHO.
> then Germany is also to be held liable as it supports Israel
Yup you are correct. In parallel to the ICJ genocide case of South Africa v Israel, there is a case against Germany for its action in support of Israel on that exact topic:
GENEVA – Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel said in a new report today. The Commission urges Israel and all States to fulfil their legal obligations under international law to end the genocide and punish those responsible for it.
The UN, like most western organizations, is biased in favor of Israel. Meaning, this reporting is what favorable coverage looks like. You should read unfavorable coverage, it's much much worse. It took the UN a long time to acknowledge Israel even did anything wrong.
The UN is a political tool absolutely - and it's one that's biased in favor of Israel.
Look, you have to understand that you and I are looking at this from a western lense. The west is EXTREMELY pro-israel. So your Overton window isnt just shifted a little buddy. It's fucking whiplashed alllllll the way to one side. So yes, from your perspective or mine the UN might appear as not pro Israel.
But um, they are, and quite a bit too. Again, if you want to see actual real anti-israel reporting, read stuff from Iran. You will surely notice it sounds very, very different from how the UN portrays Israel.
In what dimension do you mean? Legally? Yes, unless based out of a place with an anti-BDS law. Politically? Sure, it's a bet against those currently in power and for the sentiment in the population. Practically? Yes, they can refuse business and contracts. I suppose they could also put killswitches in their hardware/software, but I wouldn't be a fan of that for digital-rights reasons. Economically? Who knows, the market makes no sense at all currently. They could probably get away with whatever.
This is a good thing.
American companies should not be allowing their tech to be used to in the gross ongoing human rights violations in Israel/Gaza/West Bank.
Google and Amazon knew their tech could be used for human rights abuses in Israel (their lawyers warned them so) but ignored that in favour of $$$ per the EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/google-and-amazon-ackn...