• 3 Posts
  • 110 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 17th, 2023

help-circle

  • No, it’s not new or strange. It’s a normal component of sanctions, and it’s fundamentally how they’re implemented. Otherwise you could circumvent them by setting up two companies.

    It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.

    It’s pretty easy to predict. Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you’ll be impacted. Easy enough.

    I’m all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn’t breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.

    Are you under the impression that Microsoft is being punished in any way? They aren’t, they’re simply not allowed to do business with companies acting against sanctions if they want to keep doing business in the EU.







  • Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:

    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.

    If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU’s demands.

    It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?

    It’s more like “getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it”. Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn’t undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.


  • It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.

    They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.

    You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.

    Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.