Microsoft cutting crucial link to Gaza, Palestinians say

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cger582weplo

by mih • 2 years ago

271 146 2 years ago

andsoitis4• 2 years ago

can no longer access his bank accounts, which are tied to his Hotmail account, he says.

Come on. This is such exaggeration. Surely he has contacted the banks (note: plural as per article) and he can access his accounts. Not even one?

Banks routinely handle identification via phone to access your account and transact.

imaginationra• 2 years ago

One of my banks uses email two factor auth- if I lost access to the email account and had no accessible backup email set I can see how being locked out of the email account would deny access to the bank account.

DuckyC• 2 years ago

but surely you can show up at your bank with identification and get the email changed?

andsoitis4• 2 years ago

Well, if you truly cannot operate without access to your email account should also have a game plan for if you forget your password to your email and cannot access your email account.

maccard• 2 years ago

My grocery story requires email 2FA to log into it these days. Losing access to my email address would probably be more work than if I found myself having to move house.

asvitkine• 2 years ago

Why does your grocery store require a login?

trulydull• 2 years ago

well, consider the life of an immigrant ( mine ). i have bank accounts in India and the US. when i need to access my Indian accounts from the US, they provide me a 2fa code via sms and email. i don't have international roaming on my Indian SIM. Its active, but not really working in the US. losing email access means i lose access to some of my bank accounts.

noirscape• 2 years ago

There's a lot of neo-banks these days out there who have no physical offices, no phone numbers to call, nothing. If you lose access to them, you're basically going to have to pray that their support staff is willing to listen to you (assuming you can even reach them) and believe you when you tell them who you are.

Unfortunately I suspect more and more people are making accounts at banks like that and storing significant amounts of money in them.

joseangel_sc• 2 years ago

in part yes, if you have a physical bank next to you it’s easy right? just go

but if the bank is in another country … it might be literally impossible to recover it

pgt• 2 years ago

This is why I have my own domain and control the MX records on the DNS on it, so that I can reroute email to a new email provider, if needed (I pay for Fastmail).

Another nice thing about having a catch-all on own domain is that you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address.

psychoslave5• 2 years ago

You can even put <hn-2024-07-11>@<some-domain.tld>.

Let’s note however that even "owning a domain" is an illusion of control, as IANA is ultimately a retainer of uncle Sam. I don’t know if there is any functional distributed alternative that promote more autonomy to end users that can works out of the box (or even just a few basic install steps away) in most digital terminal out there.

dartos2• 2 years ago

Didn’t the US give up direct control of IANA years ago?

SSLy• 2 years ago

IANA/ICANN will not act on customers of others gTLDs, would they?

tamimio2• 2 years ago

Let’s note however that even "owning a domain" is an illusion of control

That’s not true. It’s definitely not complete control, but it’s far more “sovereign” and independent than having a user account with some corporation that can change its ToS overnight. To seize a domain, a lengthy legal process is needed. Not to mention, you can choose a domain that doesn’t fall under a specific country’s jurisdiction or choose a registrar company located in another country. For example, you can register a domain like .ch or .no, and a legal US order won’t be effective, especially if you didn’t use a US-based registrar. Furthermore, you can host your own domain name (1). It isn’t entirely safe, but the process and efforts to seize it are far more complicated than a click in an MS dashboard. Unless that person is doing something extremely illegal, no one will bother.

(1) https://blog.technitium.com/2022/06/how-to-self-host-your-ow...

flutas• 2 years ago

you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address.

Pro tip on this, use gibberish if you want a true canary. I know it's tempting to use microsoft@ or ms@ or msft@ etc, but companies are getting smarter about selling emails and filter those out.

9991• 2 years ago

Problem solved!

LinuxBender• 2 years ago

Anecdotally backing this up, I did the less obfuscated address with Tractor Supply and they flagged my account as fraud and nullified a gift card that a company gave me. I tried working with their customer support but they were openly joking with one another on the calls treating me as a scammer.

Toutouxc2• 2 years ago

That’s exactly why I’m doing it. Most people don’t need a canary, they just want to be left the fk alone.

technothrasher• 2 years ago

Fastmail handles this "unique email address" scenario really well, even tying into Bitwarden so you can insert a unique address into a web form with just a couple clicks, and then efficiently block/remove the email address later, as desired.

remram• 2 years ago

What if your domain registrar kicks you out because you once logged in from <embargoed country>? You can't win here if corps want to hurt you.

Zak• 2 years ago

ICANN has rules that limit how much power a registrar has when they choose to stop doing business with someone. As a rule, registrars can't just cancel your domains.

rodnim• 2 years ago

you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address

You don't need your own domain for that. Gmail (and probably the other big ones) support it as well, just add a plus sign and whatever after your username: username+microsoft@gmail.com will end up in the inbox of username@gmail.com.

zerkten2• 2 years ago

> Another nice thing about having a catch-all on own domain is that you can sign up to each service with a unique email address

This is true when services support sign-up with a password and you are an advanced user. I'm not sure that this is easy for many vulnerable people that need this. The advice you may need to add is that you should use these unique email addresses to create burner accounts on login providers (Microsoft accounts, Google accounts, etc.) because that's how you have to access some services.

liendolucas2• 2 years ago

Where can I read more about this "catch-all" domain setup? Interested to implement this solution. Any resources you recommend?

Toutouxc2• 2 years ago

Literally just register a domain, choose a popular mail provider and read their docs on how to use your own domain with them. It’s widely supported.

jimnotgym2• 2 years ago

These companies want to become as ubiquitous as a public utility. Therefore they should be regulated like a public utility

TomK322• 2 years ago

Especially if they don't give you access to you data (impossible in the EU thanks to the GDPR). They have to be taken to court for this.

Y-bar2• 2 years ago

The Digital Markets Act and/or Digital Services Act ought to have something to say about this, especially the "this secret decision is final and we refuse to say anything else" part of the story.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

That wording sounds like the decision was made in Israel and not the US.

I would guess the shutdown requests came from Israeli security services. Thus it is final and not appealable and can also the reasoning can not be revealed.

rlpb• 2 years ago

Indeed. I think that if a person cannot participate in modern society without being a customer with only a few competitors to choose from, then such businesses should have a "universal service obligation" and not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason. Such a reason should be mediated by the legal system.

For example a major chain convenience store with few similar competitors could ban someone for shoplifting, but someone innocent caught by this should be able to sue and win if the store cannot convince a court that such an event actually occurred. A mom-and-pop store wouldn't be within scope of this.

And the same for online businesses.

hedora3• 2 years ago

Suing isn't as useful as you'd expect. It costs $10,000's and months to even get to court.

Criminal liability for improper bans, and allowing citizens to directly charge the company with the crime (some states do this) would probably be more practical.

Alternatively, some variant of streamlined court (similar to small-claims court) could be established, where you could automatically use the court if the defendant had already been sued more than 10 times in the last decade for the last thing. The court would provide some sort of legal or financial resources to allow the customers to quickly sue without paying out of pocket, or spending much of their own time.

root_axis2• 2 years ago

They're nothing like utilities and it makes no sense to treat them that way.

Instead the u.s. needs laws that protect user digital rights, and all companies should have to adhere to those laws, not just big ones.

sethammons• 2 years ago

That could have a huge chilling effect on start ups, indi devs, and hobbyists

hedora3• 2 years ago

There should be market share limits on providing identity and currency, or those should just be handled to the government (like they used to be).

Similarly, big vertically integrated computing platforms should be broken up (in-house applications should have exactly the same access to APIs documentation, support, etc, as third party ones).

pjc505• 2 years ago

I don't think that would help in this case: being regulated as a US public utility would still embargo Gaza and treat contact with it as radioactive.

monocasa5• 2 years ago

I'm not sure that's true for what they would be regulated under: common carrier rules.

Case in point: gaza's area code isn't banned by us pots operators.

slibhb2• 2 years ago

Regulations are why Microsoft is banning users who call Gaza.

The real solution here is to use Signal (or something like it).

And I don't mean to criticize Microsoft or regulations. Microsoft is faced with an impossible task here, I assume they're doing the best they can.

Matl• 2 years ago

Regulations are why Microsoft is banning users who call Gaza.

That sounds an awful lot like simply being a Palestinian is being criminalized.

dartos2• 2 years ago

I assume they're doing the best they can.

I think you mean “they’re doing the absolute minimum to barely meet their compliance requirements”

ben_w3• 2 years ago

Regulations are why Microsoft is banning users who call Gaza

I shall have to add this to the list of counterexamples wherever anyone says "America has an inalienable right to free speech".

jermaustin12• 2 years ago

The real solution here is to use Signal (or something like it).

The article discusses that they are unable to contact their family over the internet because Israel is shutting off internet. So they were using Skypes Skype to Phone service to call their family's mobile phones over normal cell service in Gaza.

aranelsurion• 2 years ago

I don’t think that’s the real solution.

To be able to come up with a solution you’d first need to be aware of a problem, which in many such cases you wouldn’t be, until one day you are banned and lose all your accounts, and solutions in hindsight won’t help with that.

selfmodruntime• 2 years ago

I used to disagree with this. Recent conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine (regardless of who you side with) made me change my mind.

How is it that some rich Californian CEO with their own bias and agenda can decide to shut off service to entire groups of people in an active war zone? These decisions could cost people their lives! That's insane.

robinsonb5• 2 years ago

It's worse than that - they're gradually becoming a new form of governance - and one that you can't vote out.

The term "Facebook Jail" might be coined jokingly (and the consequences of being there are pretty trivial) but the mere existence of the term is a tacit acceptance of the idea of judicial oversight by a private corporation.

Yes, you can choose not to engage with meta or its products, or (less easily) Microsoft or Google - but we're close to the point where refusing to use the products of (and thus be defacto-governed by) one of the tech giants will have implications beyond self-imposed inconvenience.

Already you'll be excluded from a significant proportion of social plans if you don't have either WhatsApp or Messenger.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

Was this decision made in Redmond or in Israel? Microsoft has offices in Israel and these offices are likely responsible for things happening in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel is currently at "war" with Gaza and having Israeli employees of Microsoft having the ability to disable anyone's account calling civilians in Gaza is pretty horrible.

Is Microsoft via Skype and Hotmail participating in what Israel's leaders are call the "complete siege"? https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...

No appeal and no explanation available does suggest to me the shutdown orders may have come from Israeli security services or the Israeli army.

invalidname5• 2 years ago

It has R&D centers and local business centers. Skype is not in Israel and there's no reason for a VoIP solution to route through a country local facility. The "complete siege" ended ages ago. Israel provides power, food etc.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

It isn't just Skype, their hotmail accounts were also disabled. Many local countries definitely do have authority over services provided in their countries.

I would guess these shutdown orders came from Israeli security services and then were routed though Microsoft Israel to be enacted.

The "complete siege" ended ages ago. Israel provides power, food etc.

Sure, whatever you say.

hedora3• 2 years ago

Quick fact check: According to the UN, there is now a famine in Gaza because of Israel's actions:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/10/is-there-famine-in-...

“Israel’s intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza,” 10 independent UN experts, including the special rapporteur on the right to food and the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, said in a statement on Tuesday.

...

Three conditions must exist to determine there is famine:

- At least 20 percent of the population in the area faces extreme levels of hunger;

- 30 percent of the children in the area are too thin for their height; and

- The death rate has doubled from the average, surpassing two deaths per 10,000 daily for adults and four deaths per 10,000 daily for children.

gl-prod2• 2 years ago

I don't know about power and food since I have friends in the North who still don't have access.

monocasa5• 2 years ago

That statement was from less than a year ago.

readthenotes1• 2 years ago

Why did you put quotes around "war"? It may be other things, but it's definitely not just a "reaction", "retaliation", or "police action"...

axxto• 2 years ago

Why did you put quotes around "war"? It may be other things

I think you answered yourself right there

nurbayzura• 2 years ago

Your doamian come

nimbius• 2 years ago

as of 2023 the US officially sanctions 26 countries. If we are to expect that for every phone call to one of these 26 untouchables we will receive holy retribution from the US corporate class, then im afraid sanctions have defeated the very west they were intended to empower.

Microsoft has an infuriating habit of doing this; its not just a one-off. They routinely lockout international github users and feign innocent compliance when caught.

jonathanstrange• 2 years ago

If you're in a country sanctioned by country X, then you shouldn't use products from companies in country X. It's common sense.

piva00• 2 years ago

Microsoft has an infuriating habit of doing this; its not just a one-off. They routinely lockout international github users and feign innocent compliance when caught.

Two Iranian co-workers have gone through some Kafkaesque bullshit with Github blocking them, even though both are living in Europe for more than a decade they got flagged and had their accounts suspended, taking months to re-activate them.

BenFranklin100• 2 years ago

Pay for Fastmail.

heyheyhouhou• 2 years ago

I've never felt comfortable using Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc products.

In the recent months and with the increasing possibilities of surveillance with AI and how they are controlling the narrative of things, it made me feel incredibly uneasy. No more of these products on my devices.

29athrowaway3• 2 years ago

Some people forget that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

psychoslave5• 2 years ago

Typical sentence of people that are guilty, just like those who pretend they should be able to hide information outside of the protective gaze of the glorious all-powerful elites who know better than thouh.

What are you trying to hide, you seditious terrorist, hmm?

ImHereToVote3• 2 years ago

Nice atronym.

29athrowaway3• 2 years ago

There is a symmetry, an equation if you would prefer. On the left hand side you have rights, on the right hand side you have duties.

    Rights = Duties

Your right of presumption of innocence is your duty to respect the presumption of innocence of others.

If you break this symmetry, now we can look at YOU. Why should we all respect YOUR presumption of innocence if you don't respect others?

If the response is some stereotype related crap I don't want to hear it.

mcphage• 2 years ago

You can’t be innocent or guilty if you’re never accused of anything.

__m• 2 years ago

In court

eesmith• 2 years ago

Some people forget the right of free association means companies have a broad (though not universal!) right to reject someone as a customer.

Some people forget that when they signed up to a service, they granted the service provider the right to decide when to cease providing the service, at the service provider's discretion.

kibwen• 2 years ago

If technology becomes necessary to participate in society, and if we cede control of that technology to unaccountable dystopian hypercorporations like Microsoft, Google, and Apple, then we're setting ourselves up for disaster.

zerkten2• 2 years ago

It's worth pointing out that this same lockout situation can and has happened in many more cases than listed here. It happens that the timing coincides with a specific service use, but the problem of people getting locked out of their life because Google blocked access to their account is an old one. Unfortunately, your point will be forgotten by many once this episode passes, and we'll be back to ignoring how much control has been ceded.

6510• 2 years ago

I get nothing positive or useful out of writing this comment but the negative potential is infinite. When the www started someone attempted to convince me that you should never interact using computers unless there is no other choice. Turns out he was right, you are not going to buy me beer, invite me, introduce me, collaborate or help me. The new contract is useless.

kragen2• 2 years ago

yes. the only alternative i know of is free software and peer-to-peer networking on a cryptographically secure basis. unfortunately there isn't currently either a viable free software political movement or a viable cypherpunk political movement, so the near future looks very dark. perhaps after a few generations of hitherto unimaginable atrocities things might start to improve, but it is now too late to prevent those atrocities

however, historically speaking, regimes of oppression have often been dismayingly stable, long outliving the states that establish them—consider that the traditional liberties eliminated by julius caesar in 049 bce, diocletian in the late third century, and constantine in the early fourth century were not regained until the late medieval or even modern era (the final end of the roman empire in 01453, the end of serfdom in the 13th through 19th centuries, the confederation of eight cantons in about 01315, the re-establishment of a senate in the us in 01789, the french revolution in 01799, etc.)

federated systems like mastodon (or email) are a step in the right direction, but we need a decentralized system, without single points of failure, rather than just a federated one

probably_wrong• 2 years ago

If you are in Europe and this happens to you, the GDPR gives you at least a partial solution: they don't have to give you your account back, but at least they have to provide you access to a backup of your data.

NOYB has a list of what your rights are [1] and "My Data Done Right" [2] provides a handy tool for finding out who to contact and how.

[1] https://noyb.eu/en/exercise-your-rights

[2] https://www.mydatadoneright.eu/

dagaci• 2 years ago

I've just read this https://medium.com/@notechforapartheid/a-marriage-made-in-he...

For me the mass killing of children is completely unacceptable and there's absolutely no excuses, zero. And Microsoft's participation in that is a real shock for me.

some_random2• 2 years ago

US gov tells companies that xyz groups are under sanctions (which is good, actually) and that they must put effort into preventing them from using their products (also good, actually). The problem is that they are punished for true negatives (in the press and potentially by the gov) but not for false positives (except for articles like this). The end result is overzealous bullshit that ends up hurting innocent people. For another example, the US gov told Paypal that they need to prevent transactions related to a weapon smuggling shell company "Tarigrade Limited" (which as I've said before, is good actually) but they implemented it to just block transactions and freeze accounts if "Tarigrade" is in the notes. Similarly, I know of a small store that sells patches that got their account frozen for some time because they released a patch with a firearm in it and had the gall to put the name of the firearm in the name of the product.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wg3w/paypal-tardigrade-err...

Nifty3929• 2 years ago

You get to an important issue: Type 1 vs Type 2 errors - precision vs recall. Any system is going to have errors, so what do you prioritize? The company has only limited control over this choice, as you also point out that the gov't will punish them for false negatives but not false positives. So the company prioritizes recall over precision.

But you also imply that the gov't should punish BOTH types of errors, but I'm not sure that's fair. By extension it implies that the company should have a perfect system, with no errors of either type. That's not realistic, and a company should be punished for meeting an impossible goal.

Better is for the government to just be explicit about it: we're requiring companies to employ broad sanctions, and even if some innocents get swept up, we think it's worth it to stop the bad guys. Or the verse, if that's the gov't decision.

some_random2• 2 years ago

I'm not advocating for the gov to punish false positives, I don't know what exactly the issue is that's causing them, maybe incomplete information, maybe lack of resources, likely a combination of issues. Ultimately you're right though, there will be innocent people who are affected by sanctions

atlas_hugged• 2 years ago

Ah yes, the corporate firewall of America, exported to all

_pferreir_• 2 years ago

This.

casenmgreen2• 2 years ago

Every time I read a story like this, about MS or Google or Twitter or which-ever big corporate it is, I'm so glad that I exited these platforms and years ago.

I left LinkedIn before MS bought it, because it was clear it was being copied by all and sundry.

I left GitHub once MS bought it (and I thank God for that, ever time I see another story about MS being awful).

I never used Google - they were obviously evil and from quite early on.

I may be completely wrong, but I think large companies are completely amoral. Not in a malicious way, but in a can't-be-anything-else kind of way; that is is an emergent property.

All large organization have absolutely no moral sense, which is to say, doing things because they are ethical, regardless of costs or benefits, or possessing a capability to assess or modify their own actions on moral criteria.

Complaining MS do these things is like complaining a cat jumps on a mouse.

I'm not a fan of brutal mouse death, so I don't own a cat.

What's critical of course is knowing this, and before deciding to buy into what these companies offer, rather than discovering it after buying into what these companies offer.

And these companies will only tell you how wonderful their services are, and nothing about what they're up - nothing about how much and what data they collect, and what they do with it (give it to the State, sell it to all and sundry, with real-time updates included), or what's done with it (mandatory State mass interception).

wincy• 2 years ago

Curious, what sort of phone do you use?

casenmgreen2• 2 years ago

I tried running Debian (Mobian) on a Fairphone, but Mobian on FP isn't useable yet, so I had to switch to /e/OS (de-Googled Android)

No SIM, don't want my location tracked.

Wifi only.

I use Linphone for POTS.

npteljes• 2 years ago

I may be completely wrong, but I think large companies are completely amoral

For one, you are right, and two, they are actively incentivized to be immoral. Doing something in a moral way is to take something extra into account - morality. Taking into account, as an action, costs extra resources, which translates to money or risk, but then, risk also translates into money. So, what we end up with is that being moral is being handicapped. Money can be made by avoiding it.

The situation is especially worse when the other participants, the competitors, are also not moral. They can simply out-price a moral participants - people are less likely to buy the thing for its ethical "real price", if they can get a similar one for much cheaper. This can clearly be seen even in markets where being moral is a bonus, like, I'd say, how the current market is. "Morally superior" is a product differentiator, with labels like "bio", "organic", "fair", "ethical", "free from", "vegan" - even the ol' PU leather being rebranded as "vegan leather". So even in a context like this, non-morally-superior products sell way more than moral ones. So the incentives for companies are not really there, not just from an operational, but from a market standpoint as well.

that is is an emergent property.

I agree, and I think it's part of the general human experience, especially with taking responsibility for anything that has impact. Attention and possibility of action is limited, so even if the perfectly moral course of action would be known, it might not be possible to enact it. And then, the arguments are endless as to what's moral and what not, and what part of that should people be engaged in. This is all too much to handle for an individual, so, even if morality is desired, sub-optimal decisions will be made on a daily, as part of life. Which is, in many ways, no different to when a company makes them - with respect to the size and impact though, of course.

esbeeb• 2 years ago

It's interesting how no matter how much that we'd all like for technology to be this nice tidy domain of knowledge which doesn't intermingle in any messy way with philosophy or religion - where there is much less exactitude and clear boundaries - alas, this intermingling of morality comes around sooner or later.

Morality/ethics/religion/philosophy can't help but come to bear on any and all technology, once it becomes widespread, systemic and seemingly "too big to fail."

jpcfl• 2 years ago

It is incredibly frustrating to realize that a lot of companies are within their right to deny you service as soon as you even _appear_ to pose a risk to them.

Geico recently denied my renewal of insurance because they said their underwriters received notification that I use my vehicle for business. (I don't.) I have spent hours trying to explain to them that this is a mistake, but they have zero interest in providing me with insurance. I've heard this is common for people in CA.

I'm not sure what legal recourse the people in this story have. Hopefully they have a legal right to at least download an archive of their data so they can recover old emails, attachments, photos, etc.

Hizonner• 2 years ago

"right"

kragen2• 2 years ago

unfortunately they do not

WarOnPrivacy• 2 years ago

I've spread my life around several email providers, including myself. I have at least 50 email accounts (inc pre-Microsoft Hotmail).

In the last 10 years, I've lost access to ~5 accounts, usually when the provider axed their free offerings (is fine). In every case, I had warning and time to switch.

If I lose access to one w/o warning, it would be a problem but not catastrophic.

In short: What is the trivial solution to not risking sudden catastrophic loss of email? I don't think there is one. The answers are high-effort, high-maintenance. Technical ability can lessen that some.

    note: The reason I don't lean into self-hosted mail harder is spam filtering. I've hosted mail for small biz and have put many, many hours into reducing spam. On top of the usual edge solutions, I write scripts to help mitigate spam and malware campaigns.

    But the more visible my domain, the more anti-spam work is required and that state only ever ratchets one way.

kkfx• 2 years ago

Another example of why we need FLOSS and open platforms, so instead of calling via Skype and maybe using Windows he/she use GNU/Linux and call via Ring or host a small GNU SIPWitch, and maybe also offer wireguard to hes/shes peers to reduce snooping.

If such use of tech that already exists since decades became spread ALSO the giant will learn to be good citizens not "state-like entity" acting as bully.

josefritzishere• 2 years ago

We live in a world where large corporations, FAANG companies in particular have greater money and resources than entire nations. This is not a situation with historicla paralel. But it's remained largely irrelevant militarily because those companies remaining neutral - like Switzerland. If they become politisized, and act on that alignment; it potentially openes up a whole new vector of military targets which are otherwise unthinkable. I don't like thinking about the future consequences on that trajectory.

tamimio2• 2 years ago

They’ve suspended my email account that I’ve had for nearly 20 years

Another reason why you should have your own domain and be independent from any services is that it can happen to anyone, never put your eggs in one basket.

jmward012• 2 years ago

In order to maybe stop a few from engaging in acts that may harm people we actually harm many and accept it as collateral damage. It is doubly unfortunate that when it comes to Palestinians 'collateral damage' in all forms is acceptable for even the most trivial of potential gains.

jmward012• 2 years ago

Anyone know why this post is flagged? I get that there is an aspect of 'Most stories about politics' but at the same time the tech censorship angle here is high and likely in-line with 'Anything that good hackers would find interesting.'

mandmandam• 2 years ago

It's flagged because dang didn't unflag it, ultimately.

Which is concerning.

muzani• 2 years ago

dang unflags a lot of these, but the conversation is rarely productive. I don't think it's a particular bias or attempt at censorship.

But it's probably for the best. Once it's unblocked, it becomes a tug of war on both ends to flood the site with propaganda.

jimmyjohn201• 2 years ago

This absolutely rocks. Buying at least 20k of MSFT tmrw.

Microsoft cutting crucial link to Gaza, Palestinians say

Related Stories