Can it really be called a conspiracy theory when there is proof that MS has done this same sort of thing in the past? Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. Saying that someone has been shown to do something in the past, therefore it is likely that they will do the same thing in the future doesn't seem to qualify as a conspiracy theory.
I've read that more than half of government/regime changes that happened in the 20th century were the result of some kind of coup. In other words, conspiracy is the norm.
The real question is whether corporations behave like "someone", like a natural (biological, real flesh-and-blood) person.
Whereas there is a need for legal corporate personhood (so they can enter contracts, be sued and sue others, etc), the extent to which a corporation has a "personality" is very much debatable— sign contracts, sure; but fund political candidates? Have a political opinion even? That's crossing a big phat red line most countries have outlawed (with good reason)— only citizens in their own name (that of a natural person) may participate in the civic life, whether board member/CEO or the lowest paid employee: same rights and duties, in a truly democratic political theory.
Factually, when psychologists attempt to describe the behavior of corporations, they are faced with "sociopathy"— but let's not pretend it's a trait, because it results more likely from the absence of consistency between people, departments, historical periods... it's not and cannot be as stable in space and time as a real natural person.
Corporations are neither good nor bad "people", they are simply not "people", but a different category of objects. We could also demonstrate conversely that natural persons and households belong to very broken categories of businesses... because they're not businesses!
So when we anthropomorphize corporations and businesses like they're people... we really create meaning out of thin air that never was there. If it's a one-man show, sure, obviously. Above that begins a very slippery slope that leads to super PACs and other churches like Evil MS versus Heavenly Apple and what-have-you.
Whatever greatness or horrors we observe from corporations should be attributed directly to the natural people who make those decisions— it's not Boeing that's bad, it's whoever's in charge and whoever condoned it. People. Boeing is just a 6-letter words, you can't put "Boeing" in jail, nor make it "Sir" by a Queen...
So I'd rather praise Nat himself than "GitHub" here, and I'd rather judge him and Satya Nadella in name than "GitHub" or "Microsoft"; recognizing that he (they) can't possibly be alone in this so the praise extends to all employees who strive to make great on a vision... and also the blame lies with them, when they're being disingenuous. People, real people, with real names and a past and loved ones and maybe kids and political opinions. Not an abstract 6-letter name who's already changed in the timeframe I wrote this post, as two new people got hired and another one left.
Indeed, a corporation is a permanent ship of Theseus: who's left, at Microsoft, from the 1990s? How much power do they command? Here is the real link between that era and now, behaviorally. The name matters little, people manning Microsoft 40 years from now will all be new people. Transmission of culture is limited between kids and parents, and even more so between one's predecessor and one's successor at a job.
Microsoft has changed, as a group of people, because well... most of these people have left and new ones came in.
Sorry for a long piece; but this truth needs saying, especially in these times if we are to reform our societies to better solve the pursue of a "greater, common good". Mistakes were made (in the legal structure of things), ethical compasses need realignment (let's just admit people from the past couple centuries couldn't get everything right nor possibly predict our present, and let's just move on with our times, our challenges, shall we?)
I'm very interested to hear what Hackers have to say about this, although I suspect it's become a fairly non-controversial, almost benign realization nowadays (used to be ridiculous, then dangerous thinking, now it seems obvious retrospectively like any real paradigm shift).
Doing that can get you banned from a lot of projects on GitHub. Citing specific humans by name as having undertaken specific actions on specific dates is sometimes seen as aggression or harassment, even if you stick to pure factual statements. The actions of people at work, socially, are often seen as “actions of the company”. Mentioning people by personal name is frowned upon.
I’ve actually had comments deleted for discussing things in this mode: Human X did thing Y.
I think our society doesn’t like it when we highlight personal responsibility for things people are only choosing to do to get a paycheck to pay their bills.
It’s easier for everyone involved to say “Google developed AI software that allowed military drones to decide who to kill” than to say “John Smith developed AI software that allowed military drones to decide who to kill”.
Not that I think we should not use both forms. Individual choices matter, and facts are facts.
> Whatever greatness or horrors we observe from corporations should be attributed directly to the natural people who make those decisions— it's not Boeing that's bad, it's whoever's in charge and whoever condoned it. People. Boeing is just a 6-letter words, you can't put "Boeing" in jail, nor make it "Sir" by a Queen...
I think it's interesting how British English pluralises companies and groups in general, in recognition of this fact. For example, "Boeing have made a big mistake with the 737 MAX", where American English would use has. Or, "the family next door are lovely".
But dismissing presence of companies culture is as extreme point of view as dismissing possibility of change. To name a few - Oracle, Google, Facebook, Apple, Toyota, Tesla - they are different and quite predictable.
> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
I am not in "Evil MS" camp but
> Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me
Same as with people - sometimes they change but sometimes they don't
And corporations are inherently dangerous - they maximize profit. Unbound by law, unchecked by people, even amazing people with nicest slogans would make dystopia.
