Misleading title, idiotic questioning. I was at this event, these three interns took the entire qa time to read a long rambling statement off their phone that made false allegations. Satya responded expertly including mention that microsoft's job is not to be sole arbiters in a democracy.
People were booing the students by the end of their long rant, which took valuable time from other participants. It was cringey and there was far far more applause for satya's answer than the question.
Microsoft employees don't care about this, and neither do interns. Internal support is fringe at best and this is just a lame hype piece. Also employees involved violated non disclosure agreements by posting event images.
I'd prefer they be honest about what they're doing, which is complaining that others don't agree with them politically and then attempting to shame them into submission. But instead of admitting this, they use phrasing like “Microsoft is complicit in profiting from a violent and murderous mass incarceration and deportation scheme" (quoted from the article).
Thus they present anyone that disagrees with them as promoters of "violence and murderous mass incarceration", obviously informing you how they are the good guys and anyone that disagrees with them is an evil force that must be stopped. Regardless of my stance on an issue like this, I strongly disagree that this is the way to resolve it, calling anyone who disagrees with you a violent murderer.
Bit of a shame the nyt article didn't include that perspective - not all the 'cringey' labelling so much, but at least mentioning that they were booed.
9 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 33.1 ms ] threadPeople were booing the students by the end of their long rant, which took valuable time from other participants. It was cringey and there was far far more applause for satya's answer than the question.
Microsoft employees don't care about this, and neither do interns. Internal support is fringe at best and this is just a lame hype piece. Also employees involved violated non disclosure agreements by posting event images.
This stunt totally missed the mark and prevented what would have been much more interesting discussion.
Thus they present anyone that disagrees with them as promoters of "violence and murderous mass incarceration", obviously informing you how they are the good guys and anyone that disagrees with them is an evil force that must be stopped. Regardless of my stance on an issue like this, I strongly disagree that this is the way to resolve it, calling anyone who disagrees with you a violent murderer.