<story><title>GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran</title><url>https://twitter.com/sebslomski/status/1344219609923276801</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>elmo2you</author><text>I would go quite a step further than that. If this was not an unfortunate incident&amp;#x2F;mistake, then GitHub&amp;#x2F;Microsoft has become quite the active enforcer of US (legal) foreign policy.&lt;p&gt;If they do that within the US market, that might be justifiable. But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Also in what to me appears to be a rather ruthless, totalitarian, maybe even draconian way.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m pretty certain that absent this US law within the EU market, this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis (within the US, yes .. outside the US, no).&lt;p&gt;GitHub may find itself stuck, between adhering to US laws and laws elsewhere (in this case EU, but China is probably a good example too). Still, is ultimately is a choice for GitHub to offer their products on multiple markets. If they have issues with that, they are free to exit a particular market. It certainly is never a valid excuse to start violating law in any market outside whatever country your headquarter might be located.&lt;p&gt;Tangentially, this rather typical popular belief that US companies can simply absolve themselves from legal liability, just by crafting clever TOS&amp;#x2F;EULA that supposedly does just that, has always confused to me. It was always my understanding that you can not create contracts that violate laws. In most countries with a somewhat sane state of law, governments really do not like or tolerate when companies start essentially making their own law in parallel. But apparently you can rewrite (even basic) law in the USA, as long as you can somehow get both parties to agree on it. Be that by free will or coercion.&lt;p&gt;Maybe it&amp;#x27;s time, for other parts of the world to no longer put up with this kind of bullshit, and demand that US companies actually adhere to the laws (and legal protections) that exist within their markets, or be free to  buzz off and only operate on the US market alone.&lt;p&gt;With US foreign policy becoming increasingly self-serving, legally dubious, and in some case downright insane, having internationally operating companies enforcing those policies is becoming a seriously risky proposition for anyone outside the USA.</text></item><item><author>cies</author><text>&amp;gt; Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system.&lt;p&gt;And Git is open source.&lt;p&gt;Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power.&lt;p&gt;Stallman (RMS) was right once again.</text></item><item><author>factorialboy</author><text>So many dimensions come to play here.&lt;p&gt;1. There&amp;#x27;s the obvious legal aspect i.e. how these laws are framed and interpreted.&lt;p&gt;2. Then there&amp;#x27;s the geopolitical aspect. Is it fair to impose sanctions on Iran.&lt;p&gt;3. There&amp;#x27;s another aspect around GitHub policy that asks if an entire organization be banned for the location of one team member.&lt;p&gt;4. Finally, there&amp;#x27;s the aspect of relinquishing control. Your app development is on the cloud. IDEs are on the cloud. Deployments are on the cloud. App stores are on the cloud.&lt;p&gt;You have relinquished so much control, why be surprised if that stares you back in the face?&lt;p&gt;Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>A4ET8a8uTh0</author><text>&amp;quot;I would go quite a step further than that. If this was not an unfortunate incident&amp;#x2F;mistake, then GitHub&amp;#x2F;Microsoft has become quite the active enforcer of US (legal) foreign policy.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if most people realize this, but OFAC compliance is rather rigid with no room for error (&amp;#x27;strict liability&amp;#x27;). And US treasury enforces it hard. Recently, Amazon got caught in its cross-hairs ( though it managed to get away with a low fine relative to its size ).&lt;p&gt;I guess what I am saying, according to OFAC, everyone is responsible for enforcing US foreign policy.&lt;p&gt;edit: Everyone as in US person, person on US soil or someone using US dollar. I really should avoid exaggeration.</text></comment>
<story><title>GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran</title><url>https://twitter.com/sebslomski/status/1344219609923276801</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>elmo2you</author><text>I would go quite a step further than that. If this was not an unfortunate incident&amp;#x2F;mistake, then GitHub&amp;#x2F;Microsoft has become quite the active enforcer of US (legal) foreign policy.&lt;p&gt;If they do that within the US market, that might be justifiable. But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Also in what to me appears to be a rather ruthless, totalitarian, maybe even draconian way.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m pretty certain that absent this US law within the EU market, this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis (within the US, yes .. outside the US, no).&lt;p&gt;GitHub may find itself stuck, between adhering to US laws and laws elsewhere (in this case EU, but China is probably a good example too). Still, is ultimately is a choice for GitHub to offer their products on multiple markets. If they have issues with that, they are free to exit a particular market. It certainly is never a valid excuse to start violating law in any market outside whatever country your headquarter might be located.&lt;p&gt;Tangentially, this rather typical popular belief that US companies can simply absolve themselves from legal liability, just by crafting clever TOS&amp;#x2F;EULA that supposedly does just that, has always confused to me. It was always my understanding that you can not create contracts that violate laws. In most countries with a somewhat sane state of law, governments really do not like or tolerate when companies start essentially making their own law in parallel. But apparently you can rewrite (even basic) law in the USA, as long as you can somehow get both parties to agree on it. Be that by free will or coercion.&lt;p&gt;Maybe it&amp;#x27;s time, for other parts of the world to no longer put up with this kind of bullshit, and demand that US companies actually adhere to the laws (and legal protections) that exist within their markets, or be free to  buzz off and only operate on the US market alone.&lt;p&gt;With US foreign policy becoming increasingly self-serving, legally dubious, and in some case downright insane, having internationally operating companies enforcing those policies is becoming a seriously risky proposition for anyone outside the USA.</text></item><item><author>cies</author><text>&amp;gt; Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system.&lt;p&gt;And Git is open source.&lt;p&gt;Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power.&lt;p&gt;Stallman (RMS) was right once again.</text></item><item><author>factorialboy</author><text>So many dimensions come to play here.&lt;p&gt;1. There&amp;#x27;s the obvious legal aspect i.e. how these laws are framed and interpreted.&lt;p&gt;2. Then there&amp;#x27;s the geopolitical aspect. Is it fair to impose sanctions on Iran.&lt;p&gt;3. There&amp;#x27;s another aspect around GitHub policy that asks if an entire organization be banned for the location of one team member.&lt;p&gt;4. Finally, there&amp;#x27;s the aspect of relinquishing control. Your app development is on the cloud. IDEs are on the cloud. Deployments are on the cloud. App stores are on the cloud.&lt;p&gt;You have relinquished so much control, why be surprised if that stares you back in the face?&lt;p&gt;Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mc32</author><text>...” , this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis...”&lt;p&gt;Isn’t that what YouTube and FaceBook do day in day out when their influencers run afoul of policy?</text></comment>