3 ms·

Dear Amazon.com, WikiLeaks offered the government a chance to review the cables before they went online. They made the offer to ensure that the leaked document

Dear Amazon.com, WikiLeaks offered the government a chance to review the cables before they went online. They made the offer to ensure that the leaked documents would not jeopardize lives. The government declined. To date, no leaked documents by WikiLeaks have resulted in any harm coming to any individual. While the past cannot be used as a measure of the future, it does support the notion that such releases will likely cause intractable harm in reputation rather than flesh. Although WikiLeaks does not own the content, the scope of the content reveals a problem with the United States: that people in power are more corrupt than could otherwise have been known. If exposing truth and honesty while holding governments and corporations accountable to moral lessons of right and wrong is insufficient cause for Amazon.com to overlook its self-imposed terms of service, then the owners of Amazon.com have taken the moral low-ground. And I shall have nothing to do with them. This a complex issue, with many arguments on both sides, yet one fact remains: WikiLeaks has published Truth. And if Truth stirs trouble, then we, as a society, have failed. We have failed our peers. We have failed our governing. And we have failed our children. And now? I shall tell hundreds of friends.

avner 16y ago
The matter at hand transcends into international politics of the highest order. It is not some website that someone created to opine on their dissatisfaction with the government and hence were ordered to take it down. Its a website that hosted classified documents that don't belong to them, and were obtained illegally. No cognizant web-host in the US would want to host such content, if they want to remain in the business without an agenda. Amazon does not have to subscribe to some social contract that obligates them to submit to an organization like Wikileaks. As crass as it may sound, Amazon's in it for the money, not international politics. Your expectations from Amazon, while noble, unfortunately do not translate into what is practically tactical for Amazon from a business' point of view. Any other US host would have yanked wikileaks out too. It is unfair to only subject Amazon to such high morality.
- bitbutter 16y ago
  "Its a website that hosted classified documents that don't belong to them, and were obtained illegally. No cognizant web-host in the US would want to host such content" Of course they would, and you know they will. Or do you really believe that Amazon will refuse to carry any product, over the coming years, that quotes from the leaked documents that are already in the public domain? "As crass as it may sound, Amazon's in it for the money, not international politics." Of course, and that's why a boycott is an appropriate response from people who feel negatively towards their decision; to submit to political pressure, and selectively apply their terms of use rules. "Any other US host would have yanked wikileaks out too. It is unfair to only subject Amazon to such high morality." I disagree. Whichever US host dropped wikileaks under these circumstances would have been a legitimate target for a boycott. Amazon faced a difficult decision for sure, but handled it exceptionally badly wrt maintaining customer trust. Had there been even a hint of contrition in their statement, I (and I'm guessing others) may have felt less animosity towards them.
jdp23 16y ago
Well said! I quoted you at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2201&cpage=1#comment-109676 http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2201&cpage=1#comment-... -- hope that's okay!

avner 16y ago

The matter at hand transcends into international politics of the highest order. It is not some website that someone created to opine on their dissatisfaction with the government and hence were ordered to take it down. Its a website that hosted classified documents that don't belong to them, and were obtained illegally. No cognizant web-host in the US would want to host such content, if they want to remain in the business without an agenda. Amazon does not have to subscribe to some social contract that obligates them to submit to an organization like Wikileaks. As crass as it may sound, Amazon's in it for the money, not international politics. Your expectations from Amazon, while noble, unfortunately do not translate into what is practically tactical for Amazon from a business' point of view. Any other US host would have yanked wikileaks out too. It is unfair to only subject Amazon to such high morality.

bitbutter 16y ago
"Its a website that hosted classified documents that don't belong to them, and were obtained illegally. No cognizant web-host in the US would want to host such content" Of course they would, and you know they will. Or do you really believe that Amazon will refuse to carry any product, over the coming years, that quotes from the leaked documents that are already in the public domain? "As crass as it may sound, Amazon's in it for the money, not international politics." Of course, and that's why a boycott is an appropriate response from people who feel negatively towards their decision; to submit to political pressure, and selectively apply their terms of use rules. "Any other US host would have yanked wikileaks out too. It is unfair to only subject Amazon to such high morality." I disagree. Whichever US host dropped wikileaks under these circumstances would have been a legitimate target for a boycott. Amazon faced a difficult decision for sure, but handled it exceptionally badly wrt maintaining customer trust. Had there been even a hint of contrition in their statement, I (and I'm guessing others) may have felt less animosity towards them.

jdp23 16y ago

Well said! I quoted you at http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2201&cpage=1#comment-109676 http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2201&cpage=1#comment-... -- hope that's okay!