zlacker

Right of course is.

Yet 'another accident' on the anniversary of the crackdowns of the Tiananmen Square protests. /s

>>rvz+(OP)
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply. The fact that it’s the anniversary would easily explain why they’re making sure it’s censored properly in China, the human error is that it’s being censored outside of China.

>>rvz+(OP)
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397695 about degrees of freedom and Von Neumann elephants. I have no knowledge of what's going on at MS, but it is a complex enough system to generate endless datapoints. What makes them significant is that we pick the ones to single out as meaningful. (Edit: by "we" I mean anyone, of course.)

To be clear, I don't care about $BigCo, only HN; and if there's any actual evidence that this whole thing was anything other than randomness playing its usual tricks on the hivemind, that would actually be interesting and on-topic for HN. But note those words "actual" and "evidence".

>>lilyba+e
That's a perfectly good explanation, apart from the fact that an American company does censorship for Chinese government. If it's "inside China" doesn't make it better.

>>regnul+Fe
Well, an American company not doing censorship for inside China will not stay inside China very long.

I personally dislike this a lot, as well, but I can't blame a company for not taking a fall on what is arguably a political decision.

>>lilyba+e
When they stopped banning all results, the ones that showed up were just random people and tanks. This is clearly intentional. Maybe they're just testing the waters. If people give them a pass ("ItS jUst A SMalL ooPsie"), they'll accidentally ban more things. Anti-CCP games are already banned and Hollywood and sports are already kowtowing to CCP demands.

>>Sebb76+hj
Financially, complying with these censorship laws make sense.

Ethically, an American company should not be doing business if it involves censorship like this. Right now, things like LGBT+ rights are (sadly, in my opinion) still political decisions, as are decisions surrounding the ever-violent conflicts in the Middle East. Microsoft seems to err on the side of progressiveness in most of these political statements, proudly proclaiming "pride" on their Twitter page, presumably because it makes financial sense more than anything. Microsoft has no problem with politics if it serves to make them money.

The sad state of affairs is that money is more important than ethics for most companies. Microsoft made a political decision and that decision was that it's okay to censor recent history of violence against unarmed protestors.

I don't see how you cannot blame them for that decision unless you've fallen victim to Chinese propaganda.