Where possible I recommend not caring because figuring out whether malice was present is difficult and you can likely address a problem without needing to be sure.

For example by creating working processes which never end up "accidentally" causing awful outcomes. This is sometimes more expensive, but we should ensure that the resulting lack of goodwill if you don't is unaffordable.

Worst case there is malice and you've now made it more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things easier for those who remain committed to looking for malice, including criminal prosecutors.

>Worst case there is malice and you've now made it more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things easier for those who remain committed to looking for malice, including criminal prosecutors.

i am quoting the maintainer of the project. take it up with them if you think microsoft coordinated a directed attack on their project.

I think you're missing the point of the person you're replying to.

It's really easy to end up with procedural machinery that makes it unpleasant for other entities that you don't like.

It seems to get the things that you do like and value less often. Why? Because you think about the consequences to what you consider important and you're inclined to ignore potential consequences to those you oppose or are competing with.

The Vogons weren't necessarily overtly malicious when they obliterated Earth.

if you think i am defending microsoft, your hatred has blinded you to what my comments are actually saying.

Why would I think that? That isn't a sensible conclusion from what I posted. I think you replied to the wrong post

Regardless of what the maintainer says of their abuser after being abused, the point I think you are getting stuck on is this:

Creating a system which locks you out if you don't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious.

Having support where you can't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious, either.

Doing both at the same time, however, is de-facto malicious. Some executives likely got bonuses for doing it, too.

you said "hostage speaks well of hostage-taker" in response to my comment.

i interpreted that as you saying i am the hostage of microsoft, and have stockholm syndrome, therefor am speaking well of (defending) microsoft.

if i misinterpreted that, my bad. are you calling jason the hostage?

Yes, the maintainer continues to be held hostage by Microsoft, so it is no surprise that they don't publicly denounce Microsoft or ascribe ill intent or in any way speak ill of Microsoft.

my bad for misinterpreting your comment.

And the person you are responding is asserting that the response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME as if it directed and intentional malice. Which is a completely valid way to view a fuckup like this.

>response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME

sure.

but this was not a deliberate attack by microsoft employees to shutdown wireguard. that is what i was trying to say and the essence of the quote in question.

Microsoft drove a truck through a school yard at 150mph. It was not a deliberate attack, it was just the fastest route and their map says there's a highway there. Is it malice?

A certain level of recklessness is automatically malice.

>[...] It was not a deliberate attack [...]

in that case, it certainly wouldnt be called a deliberate attack, right?

the edit in my original comment should hopefully clear up any confusion of my intended point. and, well... the comment you replied to should also make it clear that my entire point is centered around something being deliberate attack vs. ridiculous incompetence.

the deliberateness of it is the entirety of the reason i wrote my comment. choosing the phrase "malice vs. incompetence" was a poor choice on my part, when i should have been extremely explicit. it would have avoided all of this back-and-forth.

They are saying that "deliberate attack" or not does not matter and is not worth pointing out. The response is the same so its a worthless point.

whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out?

its, like, the only thing worth pointing out. if microsoft is deliberately targeting projects and literally attacking them, that would be huge fucking news. like crazy news. lawsuits galore.

> whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out?

Correct in cases like this we are discussing it as a meaningless distinction.

And I'm positive that you understand the spirit of the post you're replying to.

The saying implies that incompetence and malice are polar opposites. They're not.

>The saying implies that incompetence and malice are polar opposites.

it does not

Microsoft's incompetence is certainly reckless at a minimum, and often manifests in ways that come across as misanthropic toward their users. They don't really fit the pattern of mere bumbling fools.

what about pattern of bumbling fools on crack ?

sure!

my point was that it wasnt a deliberate conspiracy/attack to fuck over wireguard, which would be an absolutely crazy story if it were true.

But nobody has said that it was a deliberate conspiracy/attack. Definitely not the OP. Who are you replying to?

Some people have been saying that but indeed not OP. I personally think it is both:

1. Microsoft have negligently and/or maliciously created a process which fucks people over

2. That maliciousness is not directed at Wireguard or VeraCrypt.

Malicious people are quite good at feigning incompetence.

and even with all of that in mind, this was not a coordinated microsoft attack against wireguard. which was my point.

i am in no way defending microsoft. just pointing out that the conspiracy-theorists suggesting that some exec at microsoft specifically targeted wireguard for whatever nefarious purpose was, well, a conspiracy.

You're trying to make a difference where there is none. Yes, they didn't say "we'll attack wireguard". They said "we'll setup our processes so apps like will end up being abused to save us effort", which is the same, just packaged into bureaucracy.

It's kind of bizarre how y'all pretend that systematic bearocratic evil doesn't exist. After being brainwashed about its evils in USSR for your young live.

I mean, sure, but at a certain point negligent incompetence is directly harmful and the motives or lack thereof are just context.

"just context" is important.

i get that everyone has a frothing-at-the-mouth extreme hatred to microsoft and its employees. but microsoft did not say "fuck jason, fuck wireguard, lets try and shut that down". that would be a way different story.

What's the accountability mechanism here? Make a big fuss online and hope the bad press outweighs the negligence?

i point out in my original comment that i think it is stupid that the only way to resolve this sort of thing is via social media. i think it is insane. and the lack of accountability is also crazy, given the influence microsoft (and other big tech) has over everyday life.

i think people are reading my comment as some sort of defense of microsoft. its not.

all i wanted to emphasize was that this incident, while obviously ridiculous, did not come about because a bunch of microsoft employees sat in a cigar-smoke filled room saying "lets destroy wireguard".

get mad at the shitty stuff they do (there is a lot!), not the fictitious things people come up with in hn comments.

It's so unhelpful for people to get mad at made up crap. It completely weakens the impact of the pushback. Like if someone is in a position where people are getting mad over all sorts of made up stuff anyway, what's even the point of avoiding actually doing any of the things they're mad about? Might as well get something out of it if the downside doesn't change either way.