5 ms·
It is true that Amazon has acted cowardly and succumbed to political pressure in the Wikileaks case. However, I believe it is in their interest to take such ac
by yuvadam 16y ago
It is true that Amazon has acted cowardly and succumbed to political pressure in the Wikileaks case.
However, I believe it is in their interest to take such action. What incentive do they have (or should they have) to protect free speech?
Amazon is a public company which operates for profit and reports to its stockholders. In terms of minimizing risk of future litigation - this move is absolutely necessary, and very understandable.
- jdp23 16y agoThe point of a boycott is to give them -- and other companies -- incentive to act less cowardly.
- tedunangst 16y agoBut are more people going to boycott them for not hosting WL than would have boycotted them for hosting it?
- jdp23 16y agoExcellent question. I'm sure Amazon's executives and shareholders are wondering the same thing. I'm not sure about the US (polls show most people here are against Wikileaks), but internationally I think it could hurt them badly.
- yread 16y agoThey would get free publicity? "Wikileaks attacked but Amazon's infrastucture was able to handle the DDOS and serve the site"
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- PatrickTulskie 16y agoSeriously. Amazon is not a charity organization... they exist to make a profit. ANYONE that threatens that will get removed from their services. This is why you can't fire up a DDoS cluster on their services. Anyone that has the ability to affect the rest of their paying customers or the core business needs to get cut off.
- blueben 16y agoThis must be why they went to bat to defend a book about Pedophilia, specifically citing first amendment rights. Edit: Not sure why this is being voted down. If you argue that Amazon is only acting in their best interests, pointing out that their behavior is wildly inconsistent is valid.
- neworbit 16y agoBut then they pulled that book too, right? I thought that result also ended up as censorship.