> Is this just how the US ticks right now?
Yes.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.Add to that the dark side of being "data driven," which is that stories like this one are just part of the 1% of edge cases. These companies also try to move away from actual customer service as much as possible because human labor doesn't scale as well as automation, so you'll fall through the cracks as long as the news that it happened to you doesn't get enough press to make it worth an engineer's or VP's time.
I know that sounds extremely cynical, but having been on the inside in situations like this, I saw how these dynamics converged despite good intentions. Stuff like this is why sending engineers through front-line customer support rotations tends to dramatically motivate engineering teams to make quality of life improvements. Once you lose the detachment that indirection from the user gets you, suddenly those 1% cases feel more important.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
> It is the policy of the United States— (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
Penalties for noncompliance are stiff and there are no safe harbour provisions.
(IANAL but I have implemented systems to check OFAC lists at other companies and seen it result in similar situations)
But they don't know that. They have IP addresses. And they do geolocation. But IP-based geolocation isn't reliable enough for that.
They have information from which they conclude that; this information is fallible and conclusions are not certain, but that's true of virtually all “knowledge” about the material world.
Iran does not recognize changes in citizenship.
The U.S. government doesn't care what Iran recognizes. The correct quotation would be "anyone who is legally an Iranian citizen in the eyes of the U.S. government."
When an Iranian citizen becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, their Iranian citizenship is no longer valid in the U.S.
There is a limited number of nations that have dual citizenship agreements with the United States, and Iran isn't one of them.
(a) the objectives of laws prohibiting large commercial flows to sanctioned countries and
(b) the objectives of laws encouraging many tiny information exchanges on the internet, taking place outside of sanctioned countries
Is it worth burning down Internet commerce in the hope of catching a few individuals? Did Congress intend to create a Do-Not-Speak list, or one such list for every Internet company? Should Internet UGC platforms now relocate outside the USA, when Congress is also encouraging companies to repatriate assets to the USA?
What's happening here isn't an attempt to catch a few individuals. The goal is to put pressure on the entire government of Iran. This is done by making doing business hard for large businesses, as well as individuals, so that pressure to change is put on the Iranian government from above (businesses) and below (the people).
This sort of thing is a temporary blip before everybody figures out decentralised solutions for everything.
Decentralisation is clearly the end game as long as politics causes problems like this. A decentralised solution will continue to "just work", while centralised solutions continue to boot people off. It's pretty obvious which one is going to win.
Maybe this trend will reverse eventually but I don't really see the signs yet. The Cryptocurrency crowd keeps shouting "decentralization" but they still fail to create applications that can compete with the centralized alternatives in terms of usability, performance and cost. There have been many attempts at making decentralized social networks but they failed to gain mainstream adoption. IPFS works pretty well but again, hardly anybody uses it.
I'm all for decentralization but there's no denying that there seems to be a path of least resistance towards centralized solutions. They're easier to develop, easier to maintain, easier to upgrade and often easier to use.
So for me decentralization is the objective, but unfortunately it's not "clearly the end game".
Even most of the very technically competent people I know are gradually moving toward central services. I'm part of a co-op of people with collocated servers. We started in 2000. We haven't had a new member in years, and we are gradually losing them. I'm at the point where I should replace my server, and I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons to justify the large capital expense and significant time cost versus moving it to somebody's cloud. And that's not even considering the benefits of moving to hosted services. Not worrying about spam, email deliverability, security patches, et cetera, ad nauseam.
I think part of the problem is that the "decentralize!" crowd is willing to put up with a lot of practical inconveniences as long as something conforms to their ideological desires. Their ideology may be perfectly correct, but until it has practical consequences, most consumers won't shift. So they're going to need to come up with competitive services that are better than the existing ones. Better not just to them, but to regular users.
Regarding your note on the path of least resistance leading to centralized solutions---Glowing Bear/WeeChat is definitely more work to set up than just signing up for Slack. You need a machine that runs WeeChat and get a TLS certificate so that the browser will let you connect securely. That definitely limits it to a somewhat nerdy demographic, even among the HN readers ;)
(Personally, I’m ofc biased, as I’m the dev of https://quasseldroid.info/).
But I think for these solutions to gain more mainstream appeal, we’d need to make the setup much simpler, and work on ideally making it a single-click solution for an organization to set this up for their members. And maybe even provide hosted services (similar to IRCCloud) for the many users that would rather pay than run their own servers.
Now I suspect we'll start seeing clones of facebook / slack etc but with a decentralized backend while offering all the features users care about seamlessly. This might take a while but it'll eventually come.
Even on the technical side, most tech products have convenience as a selling point to being more productive/effective/agile, etc.
Regarding torrents, many game clients will use torrents for their downloads, the user simply doesn't see and deal with the torrenting.
Don't confuse self-hosted with decentralised, not the same :)
Again, this is looking at things backwards IMO. You seem to imply that there's a slow momentum from a centralized web to a decentralized one when in fact there's been a rather fast momentum in exactly the opposite direction over the past decades.
To me what you're saying sounds like "horses are about to become a very common way of moving goods". Maybe you're right but merely looking at the trend it's clearly not going that way at all.
>The backend is basically figured out at this point and we need to focus a bit more on UX.
You'll have to tell me more specifically what you have in mind there because that sounds very optimistic to me. We've had decentralized "backends" for as long as we've had the internet. The web is mostly decentralized by design. Even DNS is distributed across plenty of authorities for the various TLDs (even if each of them is effectively centralized and not anybody can become an authority).
Email is decentralized. BitTorrent is decentralized. IRC is decentralized. We're collectively moving away from these technologies, not towards them. I'm personally still a heavy user of all three of these things but it definitely feels niche now (email obviously isn't but self-hosted email is).
>Regarding torrents, many game clients will use torrents for their downloads, the user simply doesn't see and deal with the torrenting.
Which is pretty much irrelevant in this conversation then. It's about the technology people use to share content with each other, not about how Blizzard chooses to update your WoW client. It's a locked-down, vendor-approved way of distributing software from a centralized authority.
>Don't confuse self-hosted with decentralised, not the same :)
It's not the same but it's related. In general if something is truly decentralized then it becomes self-hostable otherwise it's more distributed than decentralized. Anybody can host their Bitcoin node, their Bittorent peer or their email server. I can't host a Facebook node.
The distributed system does not stop to work then, but the user might risk punishment for using it, which might be even worse than not being able to use it.
The fact that you can't decentralize legislation and physical governance is not insignificant. You can't block the influence of preexisting powerful actors. Those factors do have the power to destroy the decentralization movement, and most likely will.
Maybe those "powerful actors" could prevent decentralization from becoming mainstream, but they can't kill it. Consider marijuana, for example. Use has been demonized for decades by the US and its allies. But that didn't stop an appreciable fraction of the US population from using (or at least, trying). And now it's becoming legal in more and more states.
For Internet decentralization, the driving factors will almost certainly be porn, gambling and prostitution. To the extent that they're driven off the clearnet, demand for them will fuel growth of alternatives. Freedom of expression is essential, of course, but it will be just a side benefit.
The more decentralization is suppressed by "powerful actors", the more it will be dominated by other "powerful actors". That is, by organized crime.
It will never happen, at least not on a scale that will affect significant web traffic.
There is another model, not decentralised but a practical middle-ground: the WordPress model.
Consider the following: Wordpress is an example of a profitable open source app that can easily be installed on countless shared hosting platforms or on a VPS. It's easy to switch hosting providers when you want to (and to take your data with you). It's popularity means that one-click installs are widespread.
Unfortunately, there is no common standard for software installation on the server side, and this lack of an easy installation process for everyone else severely limits self-hosting websites and apps.
Many developers think deploying a server-side web app is a non-issue, or they erroneously think that installing Cloudron/providing Docker instances/typing command line instructions are all "easy". Have you seen the server deployment instructions for "web friendly" languages like Ruby and Python? It's ludicrously complicated. And still developers seen nothing wrong in such install procedures. It's so frustrating.
I wish there was some momentum or traction in making server-side web app installation as universally simple as a one-click Wordpress install. It would also unlock countless opportunities for developers to reach more users or customers. But maybe some developers secretly prefer the complexity? It certainly makes selling a SaaS solution much more attractive over the stupidly complicated self-hosting option.
Only techies care about decentralization. Most people would rather follow a Twitter feed rather than an RSS feed. Most would prefer a mega forum like Reddit rather than multiple, standalone forums with separate accounts. There are also network effects that give centralized platforms more of a competitive advantage.
I keep hearing people talk about the need for decentralized social media, but nobody knows how to make it an attractive, viable option for the masses...especially when such a solution wouldn't be as profitable (or as frictionless) as Facebook, Twitter, etc.
This is the future of a centralized web with products, services and companies that people salaries to develop products and services.
The decentralized internet utopia is dead. Stick a fork in it. It is a fringe populated by the modern equivalent of the grey beards of 1990s.
What this all really does in the end is create a technical caste system and obfuscation of ownership. People fortunate enough to have access and be up to speed on the latest technology (or hire people who are) will reap the rewards of decentralized systems which still belong to authoritarian actors, yet it will be extremely difficult to prove that ownership--especially to laymen. It will always have a nice hazy deniability, and it will be almost impossible to hold anyone accountable for their actions, or prevent or even identify exploitation.
This is absolutely the future of the web. Perpetual and stealthy non-neutral manipulation by the technically advanced and financially powerful is here to stay. I think that as engineers our tunnel vision and intellectual hubris have given us a false sense of security as we developed this hideous system, because we thought it was some kind of purely digital realm where we have real control and real comprehension of what we are doing. But nothing is purely digital. Everything is built on top of the real, analogue world where strong actors have already divvied up and taken ownership of everything.
We were very convinced it was name/ethnically based as I hadn't been to Iran for a few years before. The general counsel at my last job sent a strongly worded email suggesting they may have been using names to do this (thanks AA!). The email quickly resulted in my account being reinstated without any commentary on their methodology.
Unfortunately centralized silos also allow unprecedented convenience and ease of use. Nobody's figured out yet how to duplicate that in a decentralized or federated system.
When a company starts thinking this way, you know there's no turning back, and more such (censorship/surveillance-friendly) actions will be taken in the future.
Iran has sanctions against it right now. Slack, and other companies that have done this sort of thing with Iran, Cuba, etc the past few years, are trying to stay on the right side of the law. To avoid imprisonment, fines, etc. If you think what they did is wrong, start a company and risk serving prison time to stand up for your what you believe in by creating a similar product and offering it to customers that have direct geographical ties to sanctioned and embargoed countries. I'm serious, imprisonment is a very real risk with dealing with sanctioned and embargoed countries.
Doing business with Iran, or a citizen of Iran, can open the door for all sorts of government investigation from fines, to being shut down for an investigation, to having data from other users compromised, to criminal prosecution of employees/officers of the company.
It's a lot easier to just immediately sever ties with anyone that has had dealings with an IP geographically connected to Iran than to go one by one "hey, you an enemy of the state? You sure you aren't? Promise? Cross your heart and hope to die? Ok, we believe you, we'll just hope you're telling the truth!"
Then there's the fact that Slack uses encryption at rest and in transit, there may be a LEGAL REQUIREMENT not to allow users with ties to Iran to use the product under CFR title 15 chapter VII, subchapter C. Or they may at least suspect they are at risk of running afoul of the cryptography export laws as they stand and simply decided, they don't want to risk it to protect the company and other users.
I highly doubt this is some Islamaphobic/Iranaphobic move on Slack's part, this is simply a cover-our-ass move so we can stay in business and not risk prison time.
See:
- 15 CFR chapter VII, subchapter C.
- 31 CFR Part 560 and Appendix A to Chapter V
- Public Law 115–44 (the CAATSA)
You may disagree with the policy, but ryaymercer isn't wrong. Living in startup land where everything is light, you move fast, and things get broken, it's very easy to overlook that there is this 500 lb gorilla in the corner just waiting to smash you into pulp for doing the wrong thing.
My guess is that something internally at Slack has triggered this. It seems likely that they're in the midst of contracting with a Federal agency, or something of the sort. When you do business with the Federal government, all manner of hell is unleashed on you in the form of paperwork and due diligence. "Negotiation" boils down to litigation, and litigation is god damned expensive.
I am not saying what's happening is right. I'm simply pointing out that this is the culmination of decades of policy and momentum within our government. Wagging our collective fingers at Slack isn't going to change a thing. What can Slack do? Let's say they pass on whatever opportunity is driving this ridiculous witch hunt. So then what? Some Federal agency doesn't get to use their messaging platform? Who cares? Nothing changes.
It all starts with asking the right questions, and ryanmercer's post likely contains the answers to a number of questions that few people are asking: what's motivating this change, who is responsible for the policy, and how can our community affect change to prevent it in the future?
Established businesses simply block connections/signup/login from sanctioned countries. It's part of the checklist for new apps. It's really basic.
Slack is just another startup to discover that there are regulations to follow. They did very poorly on the interpretation though.
It’s pretty clear that’s it not motivated by race or any kind of profiling.
Slack has no incentive to boot more people off their platform than necessary, so this overly broad ban could be a result of either misunderstanding the US governments mandate, or that might be just what they were asked to do.
The mundane includes things like contracting with the Federal government or even certain government contractors. Our company just contracted with PAE, and PAE contractors must agree to much of the same Federal Acquisition Regulations as someone doing business directly with the Federal government. One of the vendor forms was 37 pages long, and it contains sections explicitly requiring certifications that your company will comply with sanctions. The form binds the signer to personal culpability for failure.
So if you're a company contracting in this process you're tasked with preventing delivery of your product to Iran, and the Federal government gets to set the bar, not you. If you fail to meet the bar, you end up in Michael Flynn's shoes, only far less public. How long of a bet is it to expect a Federal bureaucrat will interpret compliance the same way you do? Are you willing to risk inquiry if your opinions differ?
I don't like what's happening here. I don't like it at all, but I know just enough about dealing with the Federal government that I can smell the odor from here.
It sounds as though you have access to data that the rest of people on HN do not. Would you care to share your source? Are you certain he would not have been banned by Slack if he were not an Iran citizen (just Canadian) but would have (possibly) used Slack when travelling to Iran?
We're both adults here and I assume we both can realize that splitting these hairs doesn't make my statement that banning everyone that's ever logged on Iran from slack is, in effect, a ban on Iranian ethnic users?
So no, a ban based on signing in from a specific locale has zero to do with ethnicity or race.
On the other, the author of the thread is accusing Slack of profiling him racially. What he's implying is that a human proceeded to stalk him around the Internet, on social networks, etc to check if he is an actual Iranian and ban him based on that. And that is a very, very grave accusation.
Banning anyone who has ever used Farsi in Slack, now that would be a bit closer to banning for ethnicity.
- Is this all made up to prove some point?
- Is this just how the US ticks right now?
- Is Slack just completely gone mad?
- Is this what companies believes is acceptable nowadays?
- Is this the future of the web?
The fact that I am not sure what to believe and that I wouldn't be surprised if this is all true or equally all made up is what really scares me. Ten years ago I would have had a lot more confidence and faith in the world that this must be either a big mistake or something fishy, but today I feel like anything goes and in a week's time nobody will care again :(