You’re dismissing the idea of interference one second and then excusing an example of such interference in the next.

People don't want political interference between countries to happen again and you're calling it "conspiracy thinking".

The snark of the above poster is the least problematic thing here.

No, you have it 100% backwards. I'm saying Microsoft is incentivized to not allow interference, and this is strengthened by the fact that when a government forced interference, it took steps to strengthen itself against future interference.

So in light of that actual evidence, yes I am calling it conspiracy thinking to suggest that Microsoft has built in some kind of kill switch to make it easier for the government to do things that are against its corporate interest. Because that's literally what it is -- imagining some kind of conspiracy where Microsoft wants to help the US government, instead of its own bottom line.

Explain to me what's problematic about that?

And whatever you think about the arguments on either side, snark is absolutely a problem on HN. We can't have civil, productive discussions with it, and if you say it's "the least problematic thing here", then that's part of the problem too. Let's be better than that, how about?

▲

whstl 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry but I still disagree. Calling other people's legitimate concerns "conspiracy thinking" is worse than the snark.

IMO that's what we should be better than.

And I get what you're arguing for, I just don't see it as plausible or realistic.

▲

crazygringo 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's zero evidence that Microsoft could shut down computers across a nation. Zilch. Nada. None.

Meanwhile, OP asserted they are "sure" Microsoft could do it at the "flick of a switch". Under orders from the US government.

That's absurd. If that's not conspiracy thinking, I don't know what is. A literal conspiracy between the two entities. When something is actually conspiracy thinking, you're allowed to label it as such, you know? You're trying to police ideas here, and that's entirely inappropriate. Be better.

▲

whstl 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is a strawman.

They can (and will) switch off individual accounts from the US if the government asks them, and this has been demonstrated earlier this year.

No, they haven’t coded a “country-wide kill kill-switch” but having the ability to kill individual accounts, and being in a jurisdiction that demands accounts to be disabled from time to time is equivalent to having such a thing.

Also: Remember that several US organizations, including Github, have disabled thousands of accounts from eg Iran in the past is such maneuvers.

So: definitely feasible and has definitely happened in the past, with or without the mythical kill switch you talk of.

	▲	crazygringo a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's not a strawman. > No, they haven’t coded a “country-wide kill kill-switch” but having the ability to kill individual accounts, and being in a jurisdiction that demands accounts to be disabled from time to time is equivalent to having such a thing. That's preposterous. Disabling a couple of online accounts, versus disabling the computers of an entire nation, you think are the same thing? I don't understand how you can make that argument in good faith. What are you even trying to achieve?

▲

rusk 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ignore the fool