[fuoqi]

Such a blatant BS rationalization... The commit literally talks about "compliance". This is nothing more than an easy alternative to navigating the obscure sanctioning regime. It's like self-censorship, people/companies do this because of the fear that their activity may fall under sanctions, even though it highly likely does not.

If your system relies on people being in "a free country with rights and ethics", then you have a bad system widely open to abuse. After all, who decides which country is "free" and which is not? White house? Should you exclude people from all "non-free" countries?

[thayne]

> people/companies do this because of the fear that their activity may fall under sanctions, even though it highly likely does not.

People/companies do this because lawyers tell them that there is a risk that the activity may violate sanctions. And yes the lawyers are probably overly conservative, but that's because there often isn't a way to know for sure whether something is actually a violation until you end up in the courtroom.

[instig007]

> And yes the lawyers are probably overly conservative, but that's because there often isn't a way to know for sure whether something is actually a violation until you end up in the courtroom.

You've outlined a justification based on a kafkaesque stockholm syndrome vibe. The system doesn't work as well as it's being advertised, does it?

[wiseowise]

> After all, who decides which country is "free" and which is not?

Not being in active occupation war would be a good start.

[pvaldes]

And not killing journalists or the opposition would be also a nice touch. Or not jailing people for having an opinion about the army.