Context is important:
In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.
People keep forgetting that “the cloud” is just someone else’s computer. You don’t want to pay for in-house experts to support your IT infrastructure? Welp, being locked out by a vendor is a side effect of that.
What’s wild to me is how much more frequent this sort of thing seems to be becoming. Cloud services make a lot of money, but this kind of stuff is gonna drive risk-averse companies (aka huge companies with lots of money) back to on-prem or other alternatives. It seems very short-sighted. If I was a cloud provider I’d want to make myself look as ruthlessly indifferent to the services I host as possible.
“In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine. But what if the requester was a government that just didn’t like what an enterprise said or did?” I find this quote hilarious, because that “what if” scenario sounds like exactly what happened.
Microsoft is now, essentially, a bag of dicks.
For complying with government sanctions against Russia?
I only read the headline on that one.
Oh, I did too initially; I just happened to see this article in a different community where someone who actually read the article provided the line about the sanctions.
Although I did skim it before replying to you to make sure the quote wasn’t being taken out of context.
But the title is absolute rage bait.
Cause they complied with the law?
Nonsense.
This is actually “better” than valve/itch removing NSFW content from their sites.
As Valve and itch removed them to please a payment provider, whereas, in this instance, Microsoft is complying with the local laws.
