3 ms·

I have no doubt that political (and popular?) pressure played a role in Amazon's decision. From a business standpoint it seems like a solid decision. Hosting wi

I have no doubt that political (and popular?) pressure played a role in Amazon's decision. From a business standpoint it seems like a solid decision. Hosting wikileaks gains little and could be quite costly in lawsuits, ddos, loss of political standing and bad press. Regardless this is a clear message that if you are going to publish something controversial online, Amazon (and likely similar providers) are not the place to do it. Unfortunately the scope of what is controversial is quickly expanding and already encompasses what some would consider speech vital to maintaining the rights and freedoms granted to citizens of the US.

riobard 16y ago
“Hosting wikileaks gains little and could be quite costly in lawsuits, ddos, loss of political standing and bad press” The whole point of singling out Amazon as a coward is to rebalance the cost and gain. Some people are expecting business to have morales too (well yes some don't and the topic is quite debatable). Otherwise it will gradually end up with situations in some country (should be obvious I assume) where any government official with sufficient power can make a phone call to an Internet company to delete unwanted content, and the guy receiving the call would be beaten to death if he dares to say no.