>They're effectively miniature dictatorships. Normalising removing services because a tenant does something you personally find disagreeable is fine in the moment, but what happens when it's someone you support? Like when they removed Office365 access for a member of the EU parliament.

Not that I necessarily agree with what they did here, but I would like to point out that one alternative which has been employed previously would be to silently forward her e-mails to the NSA or state department. Refusing to offer their services is probably the most ethical thing that MS has ever done on behalf of the US federal government.

Companies have a duty to ensure they don't provide services that would enable illegal behaviour. What the IDF is doing is illegal under international law and a crime against Humanity.

I'll be honest, these, like the equivalent "cancel culture" statements, can only come from the politically naive or from someone accessory to the oppressive systems. "Normalizing removing services because the tenant does something disagreeable"? What the hell do you mean?, that is already normal. The only difference is that is usually the disadvantaged side that gets hit; when it's the regularly protected entity, and then and only then, we get these statements about "What if it happens to someone you support?".

I expect this to continue to be the conflict of responsibility and capability in the 21st century.

Alfred Nobel was known as a "merchant of death" for enabling the use of combat explosives that could do (by the standards of the time) preposterous damage to people, but his argument was that he just sold the dynamite; he wasn't responsible for the anarchists getting it and bombing something twice a week in New York. And even then, his conscience weighed on him enough that he endowed a Peace Prize when he died.

The story is different when the data conversion is being done on machines you own, in buildings you own, in a company you own (for practical reasons in addition to moral / theoretical; if someone wants to stop those computations, they're now going after your stuff, not trying to stop a supply-chain).

> is fine in the moment, but what happens when it's someone you support?

That's why I never find it "fine." It's only a matter of time before corporate power finds it's way to your hobby horse. I thought part of the "hacker vibe" was being highly suspicious of any form of authority.

> because a tenant does something you personally find disagreeable

You do realize that the said tenant is massacring an entire population as we speak, right? Framing that as just something that's "disagreeable" is one hell of a euphemism.

The absolute bare minimum one can do is to not actively provide the technical means to carry out this atrocity, yet you claim it's only moral to do the exact opposite. This neoliberal fantasy that it's moral and good for society to let powerful corporations do whatever it wants is an absurdity not even worth refuting. But it's downright cruel and tone-deaf when it's used to justify taking part in an officially approved genocide.