Hacker News Reader

Comment by mildbow | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft isn't the problem (this coming from someone who didn't take an internship offer on ideological grounds).

They already have that discount (aka government contracts they would get blacklisted for if they didn't agree).

The way to stop this isn't to make snarky comments about Microsoft since that just builds up/reinforces distrust on a random company.

The way to stop this with the same amount of effort is to make snarky comments about the US government/lack of oversight. That will atleast reinforce distrust towards the government. Enough of that will lead to change.

Your mind is shaped by what you read.

View on HN

Much of what the government did (and does do) is not techically legal - in that they can not force companies to disclose or backdoor access to information beyond what is listed in the Patriot Act, CALEA and associated constellations of law.

Various mechanisms are used to get partnerships with companies including financial threat (QWest), legal threat (Yahoo), infiltration (Facebook), and appeal (Microsoft, Google). If it is more difficult to get cooperation from a company if they believe that customers will hate, snark and boycott them, or if it will damage their image it will be more difficult for agencies to make deals with companies in extralegal ways.

Discouraging customers from criticizing companies for voluntarily making deals doesn't seem fair to me. I think the OPs misgivings, however informed, are about voluntary rather than compulsed, action taken by Microsoft leadership.

I had a whole reply typed up. But it basically boiled down to : hate the game, don't hate the player.

So you give msft shit. Ok, some other corp will take its place. Change the way the government works, maybe you fix the cause rather than the symptoms.

I'm sorry you lost the text - it is so frustrating when that happens.

Getting the government to change itself is a game - and a more opaque one. Which representatives in upcoming elections are clear wins for the way that America is waging cyberwarfare, including its use of domestic surveillance? There are no such choices. The complexity of the issues and the pressing national security concerns (from an awakening Ottoman Empire, revisionist Russia and ambitious China, to the hollowing of an old American-centered European world).

The wise player, I think, doesn't only criticize Microsoft, AT&T, etc. The wise player criticizes all of the players complicit in the game: voluntary actors (like Microsoft), the Administration, shadow government, global incentives, allied interests alike.

(The government itself would say: don't hate us, the player! Hate the world game where we are compelled to reach for these powers or lose control of [y]our global dominance.)

Hating the game means hating it all - not choosing an exclusive player. So I think it makes sense to hate on Microsoft while hating on policy and surveillance law.

Actually, I do feel like tech hasn't doesn't what it could to provide for greater transparency/accountability regarding our elected officials.

Going off on a slight tangent here, but a thought I've had is that politicians aren't just evil/vote along party lines just because. They do it to stay in power. Maybe if there was an app/platform/something that citizens could to go to "pre-vote" on issues or crowdfund issues, maybe people's actual needs would be addressed?

Ideally, a rep would say: here's the app you guys use. I'll vote on everything exactly how my constituents tell me to vote. And, in doing so, just be a direct proxy for the voting public.

Microsoft at least has other revenue sources, but this video applies to them as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c

On what ideological grounds did your turn down ms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Reply on news.ycombinator.com