It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it’s by no means universal. It’s totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it’s not entirely black and white in some situations.

For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can’t get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you’re not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you’re simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment.

For the record I don’t think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.

Per Careless People, the recent memoir that this article pulls from & facebook has been trying to kill, this was one of the many unethical advertising schemes that ultimately traces back to Sheryl Sandberg. A woman who didn’t allow her own children to use fb because she knew she was making it a toxic capitalist hellscape.