[embedding-shape]

> Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy

Where can one find those extensive disclosures, especially for year 2024/2025? I'd love to hear how Microsoft are protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in a country like Saudi Arabia, which has a track record of excelling at whatever you'd call the opposite of those two things.

[firesteelrain]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/hum...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/gov...

[embedding-shape]

I guess you're familiar with those resources since you're claiming those mention Microsoft's approach to protecting freedom of expression and user privacy in Saudi Arabia. Could you please be kind and provide direct links to that/those page(s)? I opened and read through the links, but probably it's in some sub-page? Didn't manage to find anything about it.

[jeroenhd]

I think the closest thing to what you're looking for is over at https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport

Every step along the way, Microsoft picks "key" areas/terms/subjects, so they're only covering a few human rights that they convinced themselves are most important. Within each covered item, you'll find a couple of paragraphs that explain why complying can be problematic if they want to make more money, and a few lines of manager speak and links to "projects" and "partnerships" that vaguely promise to accomplish vague goals on a vague timeline with no mention of what happens if they fail their goals.

Countries and specific risks are not named. Microsoft may as well be helping Netanyahu organize optimal genocide directly and they'll still be able to barf up some manager speak to explain why they're trying real hard, honest!

Their statements are full of talk like:

> Our commitment to the rule of law carries with it the legal obligation to comply with applicable local law. When we face requests from governments to provide user data or remove content, we work to respect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression by assessing whether the government requests are valid, legally binding, compliant with applicable law, and consistent with international laws, principles, and norms on human rights and the rule of law.

(in other words: they'll just ask legal if they should comply with government requests and that's supposed to protect your freedom of speech)

And gems like:

> The GNI Board concluded that we met our commitment to GNI to make “good-faith efforts to implement the GNI Principles with improvement over time.

(in other words: we've managed to convince the GNI board that we really care)

[AGI-slop]

In 2016 Saudi Arabia was armed to the teeth by the Trump (Administration #1) to launch a huge multibillion invasion of the Yemen, bombing, cutting off food supplies, as a tactic of war, causing a famine which left over 370k people dead.

In addition the Saudi's Armed the gnocidal Jajaweed/RSF (again with US weaponry) to fight in Yemen, the same RSF who have now creating mayhem and collapse in the Sudan.

The question is, given these encyclopaedic statements about corporate responsibility, for what exactly do they count for? when Microsoft is happy to engage with this regime which:

which arms and supplies a group known to practice mass genocide/ janjaweed /rsf sponsored by Saudis * a government which practices mass starvation and invasions of it neighbour * is know for torturing and dismembering dissidents alive

What do all those links mean if it allows this?

[OgsyedIE]

To answer your question, the links mean that it has achieved compliance with the laws of the governments of the other countries it operates in, no more than that.

Your geopolitical insinuation is interestingly monofaceted, however. Ignoring the many domestic pressures at the time which are relevant (such as vote share in arms-producing districts), the 2016 action by the US (1) acted as a small hedge against any gains in regional power by China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Russia, Turkey or the United Kingdom (such as market share or diplomatic point-scoring) while (2) simultaneously implying to MBS that, in the short term (2-5 years), he was on his own with respect to Iran and (3) moderately reinforcing the carefully cultivated political aesthetic of U.S. impulsivity and violence.

All three of those modest goals were achieved and were later undermined by unforced errors elsewhere. Alternatively, one could consider that those goals were achieved to build up a reserve of political capital that could be expended to permit the unforced errors elsewhere.

[aunty_helen]

This is the canned response for advising against a shareholder proposal. We’re already doing x, no need to vote for this nitwits shareholder proposal.

Another example that was written almost exactly the same, when a shareholder asked what Caterpillar were doing to avoid their machinery being used for deforestation in at risk locations.

If you’ve heard of activist investors, this is their battle ground. Buying enough of a company, tabling votes and then getting their preferred board candidates and shareholder votes put through.