I agree with you, but I think we disagree. What I mean is that this article specifies 19 share holders, without mentioning their share. It's a very safe bet to

I agree with you, but I think we disagree. What I mean is that this article specifies 19 share holders, without mentioning their share. It's a very safe bet to assume that it's not even a significant fraction of a percent. In other words, in 'voting with their dollar' these individuals would have a literally unnoticeable impact. When a substantial chunk of society feels something ought be changed, then I certainly agree they have the right to make such change happen. But we live in a time where headlines, such as this, are constantly driven by irrelevantly small numbers. For instance traditional fear mongering was stuff along the lines of 'video games are driving kids to kill.' What that really translates to is 'one mentally unstable kid who happened to play a lot of video games killed another kid, primarily because he was mentally unstable'. The conflation between the views/actions of society and the views/action of the individual is counterproductive. If you polled people, proportional to share of amazon, what percent would agree with the statement 'I demand Amazon stop selling facial recognition to governments'? On that we can only speculate, but I imagine it would probably be quite small.