SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
technology
'Microsoft Powers This Genocide': Firm Fires Pro-Palestine Disruptors of 50th Anniversary Celebration
"I did not sign up to write code that violates human rights," wrote one protester in an email to Microsoft executives.
Apr 08, 2025
The tech giant Microsoft has fired two software engineers who publicly protested the firm's ties to the Israeli military during an event celebrating the company's 50th anniversary celebration on Friday.
The protests come a few months after the publication of an investigation by The Associated Press which found that Israel's use of Microsoft and OpenAI technology "skyrocketed" following Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, which prompted Israel's deadly campaign on the Gaza Strip. Multiple human rights groups have said Israel is guilty of committing genocide or "acts of genocide."
Specifically, the investigation found that artificial intelligence "models from Microsoft and OpenAI had been used as part of an Israeli military program to select bombing targets during the recent wars in Gaza and Lebanon."
According to the AP, on Friday, while Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman was giving a livestreamed talk at Microsoft's campus in Redmond, Washington, a software engineer based in Canada, Ibtihal Aboussad, walked up toward the stage and shouted, "You claim that you care about using AI for good but Microsoft sells AI weapons to the Israeli military."
"Fifty-thousand people have died and Microsoft powers this genocide in our region," Aboussad said.
Suleyman was forced to pause the speech and responded by thanking Aboussad for her protest and saying, "I hear you."
Aboussad said that "all of Microsoft has blood on its hands," as she was being led out of the room. "How dare you celebrate when Microsoft is killing children," Aboussad yelled.
According to CNBC, Aboussad then sent an email to Suleyman and other Microsoft executives, including the company's CEO and president.
"I spoke up today because after learning that my org was powering the genocide of my people in Palestine, I saw no other moral choice," she wrote in her email, according to the outlet. "This is especially true when I've witnessed how Microsoft has tried to quell and suppress any dissent from my coworkers who tried to raise this issue."
"I did not sign up to write code that violates human rights," she also wrote.
According to a document reviewed by CNBC, Aboussad was fired Monday due to "just cause, willful misconduct, disobedience, or willful neglect of duty."
Another protester, Microsoft employee Vaniya Agrawal, interrupted a later session that featured Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and former CEOs Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Agrawal made similar statements to Aboussad, including referencing the death toll in Gaza, while being hurried toward the exit.
Both Agrawal and Aboussad are associated with No Azure for Apartheid, a group of Microsoft employees who denounce the firm's Azure contracts and partnerships with the Israeli military and government, according to The Verge. Azure is the company's cloud computing platform that offers AI services.
According to CNBC, Agrawal also sent an email to company executives afterward. "You may have seen me stand up earlier today to call out Satya during his speech at the Microsoft 50th anniversary," Agrawal wrote. "Over the past 1.5 years, I've grown more aware of Microsoft's growing role in the military-industrial complex."
Agrawal wrote that the tech company is "complicit" as a "digital weapons manufacturer that powers surveillance, apartheid, and genocide." She also said that "by working for this company, we are all complicit," according to CNBC.
Agrawal put in notice prior to her protest that April 11 would be her last day with Microsoft, but on Monday she learned that her termination would be effective immediately.
"We provide many avenues for all voices to be heard," Microsoft said in statement Friday, according to the AP. "Importantly, we ask that this be done in a way that does not cause a business disruption. If that happens, we ask participants to relocate. We are committed to ensuring our business practices uphold the highest standards."
Organizers at the BDS National Committee recently toldDrop Site that it will make Microsoft a priority target to pressure the company to end its support for Israel's campaign, following reporting about the Israeli military's use of Microsoft's AI and cloud services.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Different 'Abundance Agenda': Avoiding Delusions and Diversions
If there is to be a decent human future—perhaps if there is to be any human future—it will be fewer people consuming less energy and creating less stuff.
Mar 30, 2025
For the next few weeks, the buzzword in US debates on the liberal/left about economics and ecology will be “abundance” after the release of the book with that title by Ezra Klein (New York Times) and Derek Thompson (The Atlantic magazine).
The book poses politically relevant questions: Have policies favored by Democrats and others on the political left impeded innovation with unnecessary red tape for building projects? Can regulatory reform and revitalized public investment bring technological progress that can solve problems in housing, infrastructure, energy, and agriculture? The book says yes to both.
Those debates have short-term political implications but are largely irrelevant to the human future. The challenge is not how to do more but how to live with less.
All societies face multiple cascading ecological crises—emphasis on the plural. There are many crises, not just climate change, and no matter what a particular society’s contribution to the crises there is nowhere to hide. The cascading changes will come in ways we can prepare for but can’t predict, and it’s likely the consequences will be much more dire than we imagine.
If that seems depressing, I’m sorry. Keep reading anyway.
Rapid climate disruption is the most pressing concern but not the only existential threat. Soil erosion and degradation undermine our capacity to feed ourselves. Chemical contamination of our bodies and ecosystems undermines the possibility of a stable long-term human presence. Species extinction and loss of biodiversity will have potentially catastrophic effects on the ecosystems on which our lives depend.
Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard.
I could go on, but anyone who wants to know about these crises can easily find this information in both popular media and the research literature. For starters, I recommend the work of William Rees, an ecologist who co-created the ecological footprint concept and knows how to write for ordinary people.
The foundational problem is overshoot: There are too many people consuming too much in the aggregate. The distribution of the world’s wealth is not equal or equitable, of course, but the overall program for human survival is clear: fewer and less. If there is to be a decent human future—perhaps if there is to be any human future—it will be fewer people consuming less energy and creating less stuff.
Check the policy statements of all major political players, including self-described progressives and radicals, and it’s hard to find mention of the need to impose limits on ourselves. Instead, you will find delusions and diversions.
The delusions come mainly from the right, where climate-change denialism is still common. The more sophisticated conservatives don’t directly challenge the overwhelming consensus of researchers but instead sow seeds of doubt, as if there is legitimate controversy. That makes it easier to preach the “drill, baby, drill” line of expanding fossil fuel production, no matter what the ecological costs, instead of facing limits.
The diversions come mainly from the left, where people take climate change seriously but invest their hopes in an endless array of technological solutions. These days, the most prominent tech hype is “electrify everything,” which includes a commitment to an unsustainable car culture with electric vehicles, instead of facing limits.
There is a small kernel of truth in the rhetoric of both right and left.
When the right says that expanding fossil energy production would lift more people out of poverty, they have a valid point. But increased production of fossil energy is not suddenly going to benefit primarily the world’s poor, and the continued expansion of emissions eventually will doom rich and poor alike.
When the left says renewable energy is crucial, they have a valid point. But if the promise of renewable energy is used to prop up existing levels of consumption, then the best we can expect is a slowing of the rate of ecological destruction. Unless renewables are one component of an overall down-powering, they are a part of the problem and not a solution.
Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard. People—including me and almost everyone reading this—find it hard to resist what my co-author Wes Jackson and I have called “the temptations of dense energy.” Yes, lots of uses of fossil fuels are wasteful, and modern marketing encourages that waste. But coal, oil, and natural gas also do a lot of work for us and provide a lot of comforts that people are reluctant to give up.
That’s why the most sensible approach combines limits on our consumption of energy and rationing to ensure greater fairness, both of which have to be collectively imposed. That’s not a popular political position today, but if we are serious about slowing, and eventually stopping, the human destruction of the ecosphere, I see no other path forward.
In the short term, those of us who endorse “fewer and less” will have to make choices between political candidates and parties that are, on the criteria of real sustainability, either really hard-to-describe awful or merely bad. I would never argue that right and left, Republican and Democrat, are indistinguishable. But whatever our immediate political choices, we should talk openly about ecological realities.
That can start with imagining an “abundance agenda” quite different than what Klein and Thompson, along with most conventional thinking, propose. Instead of more building that will allegedly be “climate friendly,” why not scale back our expectations? Instead of assuming a constantly mobile society, why not be satisfied with staying home? Instead of dreaming of more gadgets, why not live more fully in the world around us? People throughout history have demonstrated that productive societies can live with less.
Instead of the promise of endless material abundance, which has never been consistent with a truly sustainable future, let’s invest in what we know produces human flourishing—collective activity in community based on shared needs and reduced wants. For me, living in rural New Mexico, that means being one of the older folks who are helping younger folks get a small-scale farm off the ground. It means being an active participant in our local acequia irrigation system. It means staying home instead of vacationing. It means being satisfied with the abundant pleasures of this place and these people without buying much beyond essentials.
I’m not naïve—given the house I live in, the car I drive, and the food I buy from a grocery store, I’m still part of a hyper-extractive economy that is unsustainable. But instead of scrambling for more, I am seeking to live with less. I know that’s much harder for people struggling to feed a family and afford even a modest home. But rather than imagining ways to keep everyone on the consumption treadmill, only with more equity, we can all contribute ideas about how to step off.
Our choices are clear: We can drill more, which will simply get us to a cruel end game even sooner. We can pretend that technology will save us, which might delay that reckoning. If we can abandon the delusions and diversions, there’s no guarantee of a happy future. But there’s a chance of a future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Condemned for Pushing 'Cringeworthy' Trade Deal With Lax Tech Regulations
"A tech trade deal with Trump would roll out the red carpet to tech billionaire oligarchy," said one critic.
Feb 27, 2025
Rights campaigners in the United Kingdom on Thursday greeted the news that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had formally invited U.S. President Donald Trump to the U.K. for a state visit with a call for critics to "take to the streets" as they did during Trump's first term, as advocates condemned Starmer for "cozying up to a dangerous and megalomaniac U.S. president."
"This is the latest embarrassing step in Starmer's attempts to toady to Trump and provide a cloak of respectability to Trumpism," said the Stop Trump Coalition. "The British people reject Trumpism and all those in power who appease Trump. History will not be kind to this club of Trumpism cheerleaders."
Nick Dearden, director of the anti-poverty campaign group Global Justice Now, added that critics plan to "welcome" the U.S. president "in the traditional manner" after Starmer presented Trump with an official invitation from King Charles.
Starmer invited the president during his first meeting at the White House since Trump was elected to serve a second term in November, which came as a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation to authorize comprehensive trade talks between the two countries regarding "tariff and nontariff barriers affecting any industry, product, or service sector."
Ahead of the meeting, Starmer told reporters that his message to Trump would be "really simple, that there is no more important relationship for the United Kingdom [than the U.S.], in defense, in security, in trade, in tech, in finance, and so much more."
"We are reforming permitting, getting things built, reducing barriers to investment and growth. And we're open for business, open for investment, and we're determined to help U.S. innovators thrive in the United Kingdom," said Starmer. "So my message is we want to work with you, we want to welcome you to Britain, we want a new partnership, because our history shows that when we work together, great things happen."
The comments were indicative of Starmer's push for cooperation with the U.S. on artificial intelligence and other "advanced technologies," which the new British ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, has dubbed a plan to "Make Our Economies Great Again," or MEGA.
Dearden called the proposal "cringeworthy" ahead of Starmer's meeting.
"We need to stop this," he said. "A tech trade deal with Trump would roll out the red carpet to tech billionaire oligarchy."
Global Justice Now earlier this month denounced Starmer and Trump for refusing to join 60 international signatories in supporting a declaration backing "inclusive and sustainable" AI at a summit in Paris, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance saying the Trump administration objected to "excessive regulation" of technology and critics suggesting the U.K. Labour government was attempting to curry favor with Trump.
Dearden said last week that any trade negotiations with the U.S. were likely to see Trump "pushing the demands of Big Tech oligarchs who want to avoid tax and regulation in the U.K."
"People in the U.K. don't want to see a wrecking ball taken to our regulations, standards, and public services, especially when we'e talking about new technologies like AI where we're only just beginning to get to grips with the dangers," said Dearden.
The U.K. is pushing to avoid the tariffs Trump has threatened for Canadian, Mexican, and E.U. imports. Trump said earlier this month that he believed differences with the U.K. on trade "can be worked out." He said Thursday that the tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico are set to take effect next week.
Dearden warned last week that with trade talks taking place behind closed doors, "tech titans" will be empowered "to make their demands away from the public gaze."
"Any potential for a Trump trade deal," he said, "must be taken off the table immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular