this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

42174 readers
358 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In retaliation for the ongoing U.S.–Israeli war, Iran responded with a novel form of counterattack. For the first time in military history, private sector data centers came under deliberate attack.

In an era when companies known for e-commerce, social networks, and search engines have also become close collaborators with militaries, is bombing their servers fair game?

Three days after the U.S. and Israel began their joint bombardment, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched kamikaze drone strikes against Amazon-owned data centers in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that provide an array of cloud computing services to customers throughout the Middle East. The impacts and subsequent fires “caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery to our infrastructure, and in some cases required fire suppression activities that resulted in additional water damage,” according to Amazon, resulting in service outages across the region.

The motive behind the attack, according to Iranian state television, was not to block people from ordering groceries or posting to social media, but rather to highlight “the role of these centers in supporting the enemy’s military and intelligence activities.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

🔻🔻🔻🔻

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 18 hours ago

huh, guess my habit for picking smaller indie providers is paying off.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 52 points 1 day ago

If you’re going to use AI in a military capacity, I’d say the infrastructure to support it becomes a perfectly valid target.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. If your company has military contracts, you're a valid target.

So Amazon, Facebook, Google, Anthropic, SpaceX, and all the other Hitler orgs. Fuck em.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It certainly makes sense. AWS hosts infrastructure specifically for the US FedGov. That infrastructure includes systems for the US DoD. So, that makes it a valid military target. And while cyber attacks can do a lot to degrade command and control, nothing DoS's a server farm like a few hundred kilos of high explosives.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

have also become close collaborators with militaries, is bombing their servers fair game?

Of course it is.

Companies that have their AI being used for war are valid military targets, no doubt about that.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How many moral lines exist behind bombing elementary schools?

We asked several western publications and their answers might surprise you.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and certainly not anyone in an executive or military role.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Civilians and their property have been targets in war for centuries if not millennia. This is nothing new, and it's absolutely a valid way to end a war against a nation that is even marginally democratic.

If the people electing the leaders don't support the war, then, in theory, the war will end.

It worked for Vietnam. There was finally enough pushback from the people that not only did the US pull it's troops, but there was an anti war sentiment across the entire nation for at least a decade beyond it.

This is why there's so much propaganda against our "enemies" these days, to ensure that the people keep seeing them as enemies and not as people.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except they're not civilians or civilian infrastructure if they are providing munitions to the military

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Who do think works at munitions factories, and shipyards, and aircraft manufacturing plants if not civilians?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

Morally neutral and innocent civilians, of course 😇

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Those aren't civilians. Those are people who work for the military.

If you work for the military, you are not a civilian

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Excuse me??? I worked for a private shipyard, so did my dad, that shipyard was also contracted to build naval ships.

I have never, not once, been in the military.

That is the literal definition of a civilian.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If you built war ships, you were a valid target.

Your residential housing wasn't, but your place of employment certainly was

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I never worked on the warships, but the shipyard built them. I worked on building other vessels.

And I am not saying it's not a valid target. I'm saying I am a civilian. That's my whole point. The people working at these targets you just admitted to ARE CIVILIANS.

The worst thing to happen in war was making it "nicer".

Since it's no longer quite so brutal, the people involved may not necessarily even care.

You think that if Americans weren't seeing their homes destroyed for supporting a war of conquest, that more of us would stop supporting the endless wars pushed by our politicians?

And don't even try that "oh it's the Retardicans doing it" when plenty of Dumbocrats have bombed other nations in the name of "peace" fucking hypocrites.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I recommend going on strike and demanding that your place of work no longer allows military contracts.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

I recommend fixing the government ordering the warships instead of blaming the private companies who just make what is in demand.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Targeting civilians can get them to support the war a lot more because fuck that guy bombing us.

Targeting corporate assets, especially if the people generally dislike the corporations? That is far more interesting. I don't know if there are many good examples of that. I suspect you may see an increasing hatred towards government and corporations from the people while corporations will lobby governments to do more to defend their things.

[–] teagrrl@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Get rid of the Bezos servers, Iran. 🫡

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Soon They will be domestic targets too. I guarantee it

On the one hand. Though luck i can't really give enough f about Amazon to care. On the other hand if it will become more common prices of ram will go even higher. Ehhh