Today Microsoft Banned My Country Iran from Minecraft
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
While I agree with that sentiment, and while I admit that I don't know exactly what the sanctions entail, it is quite possible that this is a legal compliance issue and not strictly Microsoft's doing. And of course it could also be a "better safe than sorry" policy when it comes to legal compliance.
This is exactly it - otherwise the populace can just ignore their government's foreign policy decisions. There's consequences for being a bad actor on the global stage... and today that means no more Minecraft, of all things.
Perhaps the OP can write a letter to their representative and pressure them to work on easing sanctions...
I think it's difficult for most Iranians to not be aware of their government's decisions and actions around the globe...
Besides - what alternative would you propose? Just pretend everything is ok and business as usual? Bomb their government instead of using sanctions?
Concretely, the Reddit user is clearly aware of why this is happening and is blaming the USA government, not his.
Given our administration's current views on Iran, and the Obama administration's similar views, it would have been trivial for Iran to be welcomed back into the international community.
Yet... they once again chose the opposite. So, today, that means no more Minecraft. Perhaps one day the population of Iran will have had enough of their government and make changes.
People in power remain in power by keeping the population under control. If the population is indifferent to consequences of the power-class' decisions, then everything can keep rolling along as-is. When the population is impacted negatively by the power-class' decisions - then civil unrest happens. With enough of that, the power-class loses power...
This[1] video does a decent job of highlighting the careful balancing act that's required to remain in power... it also highlights the difficulties of changing the status-quo even for a benevolent dictator that desires to remain a dictator - ie. they have to appease all of the powers-that-be under them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests
> otherwise the populace can just ignore their government's foreign policy decisions
It's a murderous regime. It's not a government that you can write letters to and vote away.
There's so much historical precedent for this working. If a consortium of Western militaries show up and say "join us fighting against your government or when we win you'll be killed/exiled as a traitor" the population will flip immediately.
It's not as if we don't do this already, we just quietly orchestrate violent revolutions and install people loyal to the west. This method would at least be more honest about it.
Perhaps that's what the countries wish would happen - but there's dictatorships all around the world that don't enjoy the pointy end of the international community's proverbial sanction stick.
Iran simply has to stop being an international nuisance and people would happily return to doing business there.
In the past decade, we've had two US Administrations that desperately sought to warm relations with Iran. Ball is/was in Iran's court, and so far they keep forcing people to punish them...
The interests might at times be veiled under a discourse of "rights" or "democracy" or whatever and at times this discourse might even be valid, however the underlying reasoning for it rarely lies there as the kings and his friends are free to do whatever they please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Buenos_Aires_Israeli_emba...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
i.e. the terrorism should be condemned but the state sponsor of the terrorism has clean hands.
I'd argue just the opposite, the state sponsor of terrorism is actually worse than a state that takes action itself and doesn't delegate it to a 3rd party.
b) consulates are not military bases, so unclear why there was a meeting of Iranian Revolutionary Guard in that building if it was a consulate as you said.
c) It wasn't in Iranian territory
d) Iran is trying to build Syria as a base to attack Israel
e) Israel hasn't fired 300+ ballistic and cruise missiles in the Syria attack. The scale of the Iranian attack is absolutely enormous.
But yeah otherwise sure - total symmetry.
Making life more difficult for ordinary Iranians isn't going to change anything as long as the army and revolutionary guard stay loyal to the criminals in power.
Right, just like the people of Afghanistan must have hated so much the Taliban, with their cruel and tyrannic grip on power... just waiting for a saviour like the Americans to bring them up to the modern age...
Well, we all know that's a load of bullshit now. The very moment the Americans left, without resistance of any kind, the Taliban is back. This happens again and again, in country after country, but people still seem to forget (or not even be aware of anything happening) and think everyone in the world wants to be like them, and when those in faraway places are not behaving like themselves it must be because they're being forcibly coerced by some maleficent dictator or some other imaginary villain.
Things are not black and white. Sure, some people in Iran would love a more West-friendly regime, but almost certainly, most would be horrified if their government suddenly started implementing laws to guarantee freedom of speech, legalize abort, separate state and religion, allow same-sex marriage and sex change operations, and a whole lot of stuff that's only preached by the West and is not at all accepted as good by most of the other cultures in the world... can't people just accept that not everyone thinks the same or want to be the same as themselves?? That goes against the Western's own modern values of being accepting of differences and not trying to submit other cultures to our own values and believes.
That said, Iran has a political structure that owes little to no obedience to the will of the people, with a non-elected supreme leader and guardian council (half of which are appointed by the supreme leader) who have the final say in all political decisions, so the actions of Iran should not be mistaken as the will of the people, even in the loose sense that representative democracies are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/world/middleeast/iran-rap...
Btw, HN, that young man's life can be saved. [deleted incorrect info.] PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!
As my beloved homeland is, imo, under effective coercive occupation of Islamist ideologues (there is not a even hint of godliness in that regime) it is preferred that you refer to the regime by its name IRI and not cast calumny on the beauty that is IRAN.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-revolutionary-guards
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-revolutionar...
I find that difficult to believe because, if that were the case, at some point, specially because of all the reasons you mentioned, the people would just get over it and kick the current Government out of office for good?! It may be bloody, but if the people really want it, it's not unreasonable to assume, IMHO, that the military would be onboard with it?? Once the military is on board, there's nothing the politicians and cleric can do to stop it as in a revolution, the only thing that matters is physical power.
Putin claims the US already pays mercenary forces from the U.S, UKraine, and elsewhere already. He also makes the claim that “talk about Russia using a nuke is just U.S. propaganda” from the government to gather consent from the general population to raise taxes.
> Even VPN doesn't work. Because Microsoft has linked Minecraft to your Microsoft account and it's hardcoded into it that I am iranian. I tried VPN, and it still said it's banned in my country.
source: https://old.reddit.com/r/GirlGamers/comments/1cckj2q/today_m...
As far as dictatorships go, Iran actually has some political life.
That would eventually make your position untenable.
When exactly would it be untenable for me to not support trade with authoritarian regimes?
I expect a significant change of tone once you need to change your own usage patterns because of your principles. Or a straight out "fight dictatorships, but only when it's convenient".
Is one system provably better than all others and therefore must dominate?
I personally find the idea of an Oligarchical Republic to be a bit batty nuggets... Do i get to trade? Am i up against the wall in your world?
Democracy is a doorstop for foreign enterprises and influence. The locals suffer.
The combination of shallow + inflammatory on divisive topics is guaranteed to make HN discussion worse, at least for its intended purpose, which is curious conversation.
The efficacy of economic sanctions is complicated and debated, but one can absolutely say there is little compelling evidence that they result in positive outcomes for anybody.
And Iran is not a dictatorship. (Surprised?)
"A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations."
I'm also curious if the motivation for abuses as call it matters. I think there was some significant event that Hamas coordinated that then prompted a response from Israel?
So you really can't call Hamas's rule democratic in any meaningful sense.
Palestinians have no rights in their homeland, Israel invaded it and every time they take more land they simply claim the original occupants aren’t part of the country their home is/was in.
Israel didn't "invade" the land. Jews moved into the land legally, and then the rulers of the land at the time gave it to the UN to recommend what to do with it, given that there were two peoples there. The UN recommended splitting it into two parts, one for each people (the Arabs and the Jews). The Jews agreed to this plan, the Arabs didn't. The Jews then declared independence, and other Arab countries launched a war on Israel, urging the current Arab inhabitants of that land to flee, and return when the land is taken away from the Jews.
Some of the original Arab inhabitants fled (there are massive debates on whether they fled because of the urging of the Arab leaders, or out of fear). When Israel won the war, these original inhabitants were unable to return.
Other Arab inhabitants of that land stayed, and they and their descendants are now Israeli citizens, that have full rights and can vote just like any other citizen (Arab Israelis make up 20% of Israel).
So: > Palestinians have no rights in their homeland,
Not true. 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinians.
> Israel invaded [their homeland]
No, Israel didn't exist, and the Jews who came to Palestine weren't "invading" anything, they arrived legally for the most part (and many were turned away, even during the Holocaust, and ended up dying).
Your forgot to mention the Zionist terrorism, the Zionist pogroms and massacres, the very biased western diplomats involved in splitting a land that was not theirs, and the fact that neither the Turks nor the Brits had any legitimacy over Palestine.
The Palestinians did nothing wrong, but they ended up the victim of a bunch of fanatical ethnonationalists who wanted to build a Jewish state on their land.
Right, and remember, slave owners didn't kidnap people, slaves were legal property.
Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.
> The UN recommended splitting it into two parts, one for each people (the Arabs and the Jews). The Jews agreed to this plan, the Arabs didn't.
That is, the government sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.
> The Jews then declared independence, and other Arab countries launched a war on Israel, urging the current Arab inhabitants of that land to flee, and return when the land is taken away from the Jews.
The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war. Civilians flee there home so as to not be killed, these are called normally called refugees, but in this case they are Palestinians which Israel has established are not people. When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense.
I don't know about you but this sure as shit sounds like their homes were illegally invaded. To back up my assessment: Israel has never stopped doing this, and it has been found to be explicitly illegal every single time it has gone to court.
> Arab Israelis make up 20% of Israel
Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos that are not considered part of Israel and have no voting rights in Israel, despite Israel having near total control of all food, water, medical care, ...
You're playing BS semantic games, and by your logic SA could have claimed to not be apartheid by just saying that the black South Africans were part of a "different" country that just happened to significantly overlap .. South Africa.
I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.
I get it, you're pro-Israel, and believe the Palestinians don't have any rights to their own homeland, but pretending that Israel is not an invading colony, and pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false. Just say you don't believe Palestinians are people so didn't have any right to their homeland.
If that's true – where did Jews come from, and where are they meant to be?
This kind of comment is not warranted. It is beneath the standards of Hacker News. It's putting words in my mouth which I vehemently disagree with. I will attempt to answer the rest of your comment civilly, but if you think that anyone who disagrees with you is evil, may I suggest your worldview is... incorrect.
> Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.
Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?
> That is, the government [the UN] sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.
Or how about: the UN, the representative of all countries, which was given custody of the land by Britain, who had owned that land, recognized that there was an issue, both because two different peoples had legitimate aspirations for that land, and because many Jews who had managed to survive the Holocaust had nowhere to go. Given that Jews were by this point a 30% minority on that land, and given the many Jewish refugees, the UN decided to suggest a compromise.
And like I said, you can think this was a bad decision by the UN, it's certainly debatable, though I'm not sure what you think should've happened instead (either to the Jewish refugees of the Holocaust, or to the Jews living in Palestine). Was starting a war probably aimed at wiping out Jews really the correct alternative?
Either way, I don't think calling it "an invasion by Israel" makes any sense, since Israel didn't even exist.
Btw, serious question - what would you have suggested if you were the UN? What would you think should've been done in Palestine, and with the Jewish refugees?
> The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war.
It wasn't a "country" into which the Jews moved, it was part of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, then later British territory. Also, which land did Jews "steal" from the occupants of that country before 1947?
> When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense. > Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos
After the war, the Palestinian refugees were actually taken in by Jordan and Egypt. They didn't "return to their homes" and "get put in Ghettos". I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. The Palestinians that stayed in Israel were kept under some kind of military rule, but eventually made equal citizens.
As for 100% of Israel is Palestine... ok. What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?
> You're playing BS semantic games,
I'm really not, I honestly think you're just wrong on many actual facts, as I pointed to above. These are not at all semantic distinctions.
> I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.
"Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that. You may mean "Jews" were colonial invaders, which is more understandable, though still not really in line with a lot of facts, like that they moved in mostly legally, and that most Jews in Israel were actually refugees themselves. Not exactly scheming colonial invaders. Most Israeli Jews had and have nowhere else to go.
As for the legal status of what Americans did in the colonies - firstly, Israel never "eradicated" the Palestinians. Secondly, even assuming your history is 100% spot on - what now? Because of the past, should the Americans living in American now be.. what? Removed? And sent where? Similar questions to what you think should happen to Israelis now.
> pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false.
Let's leave aside "arabic Jews", which is not how most of that group chooses to identify for various historical reasons (and which make up the majority of Israelis, btw).
Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights. (And including there being many Arab members of the Israeli parliament.)
There were the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Then European powers started funding and arming a mass migration into Palestine, and in a totally unsurprising turn of events that increased the proportion of that region that were jewish. This is like saying america was not invaded, people just migrated to it, and suddenly there were more europeans than the indigenous population.
And much like america, the non-invading migrants ended up with all the power and resources.
> "Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that.
Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?
> Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights.
I just checked, and indigenous Palestinians can't vote in Israel's elections, so I'm not sure where your getting this claim that they have equal rights? Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.
That region has a long history. How do you think those inhabitants got there in the first place? They also migrated there. Long in the past, Jews were there, and were probably there before these current "indigienous" population, if they weren't all part of the same group (Jews and Palestinians are basically cousins, genetically speaking).
But does any of that really matter at this stage? Does the fact that there were 250k Palestinians in that land 200 years ago really mean that all that land now rightfully belongs to them and no one else is ever allowed to live on it, despite it being home to 15 million people now? Does the fact that at this stage, multiple generations of Israelis have been born and raised in Israel not mean anything, because "they weren't there originally"?
> Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?
Why do you insist on calling it an invasion at all? Are the Chinese "invading" the US because some people from China have legally moved to the US?
Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.
> Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.
There's nothing "magical" about it. Some Palestinians fled Israel when it was founded, for various disputed reasons. Some fled to Jordan, some to Egypt, some to Syria I think, etc, and they had various different statuses until 1967. Some are still in refugee camps in Syria, for example. The ones in Jordan were given Jordanian citizenship. None of these are Israeli citizens, nor did Israel have any control over their lives until 1967.
The Palestinians that didn't flee but rather stayed in Israel, became Israeli citizens, and now have full rights.
The reason Israel has any control over the Palestinians who are not citizens is that there was a war with the Arab countries surrounding Israel, and in that war, Israel captured a few territories from its neighboring countries - Gaza, the West Bank, and the Sinai peninsula. The Palestinians in the West Bank have since then been under military occupation, the ones in Gaza were under occupation until 2005, when Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and left them to govern themselves (though some people consider it still under some form of occupation because of the blockade and other reasons).
(Worth noting that the Sinai was given back to Egypt for a peace agreement with them, a peace that has held for 50 years.)
The Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreements, recognized Israel as a state, and got a form of self-government. They are not Israeli citizens and are not trying to be Israeli citizens; at least officially, the representative of the Palestinian people work towards a two-state solution, which would mean a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israeli state.
This has unfortunately not been achieved yet, for many reasons, with Israel definitely sharing a lot of the blame IMO. But it is the agreed-upon end-state by almost anyone with any actual position among the Palestinians.
What do you think is a good end-state here? You raise a lot of legit grievances that Palestinians have, and though I dispute much of the details of your history, I don't disagree that Palestinians in some ways got the short end of the stick here. Still, that was 75 years ago - relitigating the past is different from actually trying to solve the situation today, and I wonder what you think should happen.
"Invasion" perhaps isn't the best term to use, as it implies some sort of one-shot military deal. The actual process involved multiple steps of course -- Resolution 181 (imposed by European powers); the additional land gains by 1949 (unequivocally by force); the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 (same); and of course the fact that very few people were allowed to return after they were brutally expelled and/or temporarily left during the course of events.
Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.
The Arab states instead attacked Israel, which is why additional land was gained in 1949. It's true that it was by force, but it's just as true that it was unequivocally a defensive war the Israel fought. If you launch a multi-state attack on another state and you lose, it makes sense you'd lose territory.
1967 is a more complicated story. Israel considers the things Egypt were doing to be tantamount to declaring war, so it launched a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Israelis usually consider this a defensive war, though I think majority opinion outside of Israel is that it was an Israeli attack.
> Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.
This is simply flattening the actual history. Look, there were legitimately two peoples on that land at the time. They both wanted a home state. One group, the Jews, agreed to every single compromise put forward. The other refused every single one, and with their neighboring friends, launched a war of annhilation against the Jews.
You can't refuse every single compromise without offering an alternative, launch a war to force your way, and then complain when you lose!
It's also worth noting that Arab countries controlled the WB and Gaza for twenty-something years after the founding of Israel. And yet none ever did anything to give Palestinians independence or create a Palestinian state on that land, the same land that everyone is shouting "free Palestine" about, including all those Arab countries.
I'm not trying to flatten history - just to get to the basic point. The other aspects that you're bringing up (Arab aims during 1947-1949; which side has been more intransigent since, etc) touch on narratives that are hotly contested as you know, but in any case are even further from the original topic of this thread (which had something do with Microsoft and Minecraft, apparently).
So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.
And of course of further attempts at encroachment upon anyone else's land.
> There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.
While it might be a "true fact", it's gaslighting to suggest that despite Jews agreeing to a non-violent plan, despite Israel being attacked with the probable intent of wiping it out completely, despite all that, it's ok to characterize the land capture to help protect itself in this defensive war as "land taken by force". That's just not how most people would use that phrase.
> So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.
This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have no idea what is best for the future (I don't see any peace being achieved with Hamas in place, frankly) but the current situation is awful and has to change.
That's not my vibe, man. And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.
(I'll also edit my comment.)
> And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.
Fair enough.
For the record, from what I've read of your comments so far, I think we mostly agree about things, apologies that I let the topic make me talk in a way that is inappropriate. (I also like your username for the record)
I'd pick up on the other topic (the Nation-State law, etc), but apparently there's a very insecure person out there right now who is vindictively flagging nearly all of my recent posts -- including the one just above your, just now.
Okay, it seems in one post I was quick to misread someone, so I can see an issue there. But definitely not in all of them).
I'm sorry that that's happening to you, looking at your comment history it doesn't seem right. I'll try to do what I can to stop this, though it might be worth reaching out to dang and ask him to look at this.
What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"? And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?
(Correcting the term used for this group, given that the vast majority of them do not self-describe as "Israeli", per numerous polls).
I highly dislike the Nation-State law. That said, its effect in practice is almost nothing, it is mostly symbolic. I disagree with the symbolism, but it doesn't negate what I said. This is confirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court:
> The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a Jewish state—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all.
Question - is your criticism of what I said only because of that law? It was passed in 2019. Did you have no criticism before that?
> And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?
Israel defines its citizens in whatever way it wants, just like any other country. It has immigration laws, just like any other country. Trying to analyze this as something unique is just wrong.
Just like I can't just go to France and instantly become a citizen, unless I have some kind of French ancestry, as defined by France itself, in the same way someone can't just become a citizen of Israel without having what Israel considers Israeli ancestry. Since it was started specifically as the homeland of the Jews, as a place for Jews who had nowhere else to go cause everyone else was too busy killing them, that's what it uses for ancestry.
People try to make this seem weird, but this is pretty consistent with how most democracies work.
I don't see the commenter you're replying to saying that Palestinians don't have any rights to their own homeland, for what it's worth.
Always useful to keep in mind that this is an immensely complicated struggle, not well captured by any slogan or argument that fits in an HN comment, and that it is extraordinarily unlikely that we're going to resolve it on HN at all.
You're both great commenters on this site. If you're at an impasse over this, maybe agreeing to disagree is a strong move here?
I'm not saying "everything is just fine over in Israel". But the original context was about not trading with dictatorships, which Israel is not.
The petty dictatorships are forming their own trading club: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea.
[1] - https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
Besides that.
The minecraft login is basically a license check allow you to join 'legal purchase required' server. And whether you want to enable the enforcement is up to server owner.
The bedrock version on the other hand is completely proprietary. With very little extension api exposed. So there is very few mods of them.
I think your point is that the Java version at least is easy to modify, but that's because it's in Java, not because Microsoft wants you to. "Open source" and even "source available" are terms of art which don't apply here. "Very hackable" seems more appropriate.
Before this exists, there is a community project to de-obfuscate naming back to readable human names. And it usually took about a month after new minecraft version released. But this is no longer needed because mojang now release the actual mapping.
So microsoft(mojang) do want to make modders live easier out of own willing. Not just because it is java. Or they don't really need to publish that at all.
https://launcher.mojang.com/v1/objects/a981dbf4095dbb2ffb078...
The other half is to reduce their ability to wage war on their neighbors.
Either way, the leaders are still sipping wine and eating cheese.
Why are they not working to bring about regime changes in Russia and Iran, and why did they not work to bring about regime change in Cuba and Iraq?
https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
On the other hand, actually doing it is a lot of compliance work, and some hosts block traffic to Iran by default. Could be that something changed in the hosting and it's going to take attention and time to get it back to opened up. Microsoft should know better, but...
The most effective anti-piracy tool today is to prevent communities from actually earning trust and moderating content trackers.
Of course, you'll only be able to play on servers that do not authenticate accounts this way.
Think of it this way: if I want to spread malware, what better way than a cracked Minecraft launcher?
These aren't 10 download, unknown group uploads. These launchers are used by thousands of people, and if you just go to the one with hundreds of upvotes on reddit it's the same risk as downloading any other kind of non-billion-dollar-company software.
Cracked minecraft clients have been around for over a decade at this point, and third-party minecraft launchers are not a niche thing at all. Compromises have happened, but that's not unique to Minecraft.
> Think of it this way: if I want to spread malware, what better way than a cracked Minecraft launcher?
Fake leaked songs, videos, new video games, Roblox/Fortnite in-game currency generators, video streaming sites with malware ads...
Pirate servers with friends is more fun anyway, people can change their nicknames on a whim as they can on IRC/discord. And you don't have to worry about the built-in snitchware banning you for talking shit with your bros, or daring to be born in a country the state department is mad at.
You paid money, but it is possible that the transaction didn't come with full unencumbered ownership.
Inclusivity is selective... Always has been, always will be.
So why do people, especially in places like Iran, use Microsoft’s Minecraft implementation? Is it just ease of use?
This is the way.
Not saying that this is the way it should be, but at least read the ToS before agreeing to it.
Pushing "terrorists" to better secured means of communication is no way helpful to the US.
I've been pretty concerned about Microsoft since their quality is low and their customer service is AOL tier.
My kid loves minecraft, I've made some cool worlds, my wife is/was into it. I have realized that everything ends, and I think Minecraft is going to end before and of us 3. It has got to be Greed at this point? Minecraft becomes p2p or similar.
I'm really hoping the FOSS variants can catch up before its too late.