i know you have strong feelings about this, because you have over 10 comments on this submission, but i'm talking about the general rhetoric of the message (as i quoted), not specific to a/i or any left/right politics.
the general language used in this announcement is undoubtedly anti-encryption and anti-privacy. it just so happens that this time the rhetorical device is terrorism instead of protecting children.
When the government decides its going to exercise more control over speech, its a coin-flip whether the excuse will be "preventing terrorism" or "for the children".
So, you must support AWS and MS getting sanctioned for supporting the IDF, which has committed many more acts of terror and far worse forms of it. Right?
Well, they never will be. So that reveals the real intention behind this action, like someone else said: elimination of human rights and political persecution. This has nothing to do with terrorism, since the people doing it are happy to be inflicting terror globally.
Careful now, YC will get added to the terror watch list for being... "statistically lacking in support for dear leader and his current executive actions/~~corruption~~ interests, (subject to change with the wind)"
Sanctioning an email provider doesn't have anything to do with human rights, just like breaking the cables of a high speed train because you want your communist utopia to be realized has nothing to do with democracy.
as a neutral provider, they should still be punished for providing services to sanctioned entities of course, no limited to revoking their license to be a business invloved in transfering money.
the general language used in this announcement is undoubtedly anti-encryption and anti-privacy. it just so happens that this time the rhetorical device is terrorism instead of protecting children.