The reasons behind the move were global and complex, but for CIOs, it raises frightening new risks, where cloud or SaaS vendors can cut a company off with no warning.
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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
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.
Context is important:
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.
Microsoft is now, essentially, a bag of dicks.
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.
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.