6 ms·

They have a Terms of Service, and like (literally) every hosting provider on the planet, they will take down your site if you violate the agreement that you agr

by cmelbye 16y ago

They have a Terms of Service, and like (literally) every hosting provider on the planet, they will take down your site if you violate the agreement that you agreed to when you signed up.

jacquesm 16y ago
And like every other webhosting provider on the planet they'll have to decide when they think it is time to stand up for their customers and when to let it go. Suppose you have a newspaper and you want to co-locate, Amazon is suddenly no longer an option. Really, the speed and ease with which they rolled over after some political pressure is quite amazing to me, I had them pegged as 'solid' before.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  If they were solid in your experience in the past, perhaps this time there were special mitigating factors in this case we are not aware of, or have not recognized? One thing that pops to mind is WikiLeaks was promising to expose the secrets of all big businesses everywhere. It makes no sense whatsoever for Amazon to support someone promising to do that, unless Amazon has no secrets they wish to keep.
- olefoo 16y ago
  It was somewhat craven of them, on the other hand; I can see it from their point of view Senator Lieberman can make life very difficult for them vis-a-vis local sales tax charged on goods sold across state lines. In my mind Amazon is reacting in a way that protects their short-term interests but they do not realize that they have now given a clear signal that they will cave to pressure.
- nikcub 16y ago
  esp considering that they spent a few days defending the child pedo guide on the grounds of free speech The Guardian used Amazon to host the app they built that allowed readers to filter through and flag the Afghan war logs. No takedown from Amazon there! Hypocrites.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Even the Neo Nazis have a right to free speech. And they're despicable too. That does not mean that free speech as such is wrong, just that some speech is reprehensible.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      "I hate Illinois Nazis."
    - smcl 16y ago
      There is a school of thought that once Nazis are invoked, the argument is automatically forfeit by whomever issued the remark.
cma 16y ago
BS, if they hosted the NYT and the NYT posted a leaked document, they wouldn't take them down. It all depends on power relations, perceived legitimacy, etc.; the only thing it has nothing to do with is their terms of service.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I too think Amazon wouldn't have taken down the NYT. On the other hand, had WL not violated the AWS AUP, I also don't think Amazon would have taken them down, either. The point is, if you don't violate the Amazon ToS, this is a non-issue (outside of personal politics, which is a fine reason not to do business with them, but a bit out of scope for this discussion.)
  - jbooth 16y ago
    What exactly was the violation of the ToS again? Honest question, I really don't know. At any rate, I'd amend your "if you don't violate the ToS" to "if you don't attract a phone call from a cranky old senator's office", since that's what seems to have prompted the action.
    - smhinsey 16y ago
      The violation was cited as being that Wikileaks does not own the content they posted.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Those who don't know history...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
  - cma 16y ago
    If you post public-domain material to your site, you don't "own, or otherwise control all the rights" to it. There is no jurisprudence that says posting public-domain material isn't exactly what Wikileaks did. (People with security clearance have been successfully prosecuted for publicly leaking/publishing classified information; no recipient lacking security clearance ever has) If the rest of the TOS is full of stuff like that, it would be doubtful it would even be possible to run a significant site without in some way violating the TOS. According to that TOS, one user-submitted comment of copyrighted content and your website could immediately be permanently pulled, even if you took the comment down as fast as humanly possible.
ajays 16y ago
What saddens me is that people are parroting this "violated ToS" line without even thinking about it. It doesn't matter whether you support WL or not; but at least do the bare minimum and _think_ about what you're writing? Where in the ToS does it say that "site can't host classified information" ? And why hasn't NYT's access be pulled yet, because NYT is serving the _same_ documents ? Here's a fact: US Government publications can't be copyrighted. Period. So while Amazon tries to hide behind these lies, they're also busy making money off of books about similar "leaks", like the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc.
- gonzo 16y ago
  Books and newspapers are protected by the First Amendment, maybe? Its not clear that wikileaks.org, self-publishing is "the press". Does Lovell v. City of Griffin hold? I don't know. Do you?
  - newt 16y ago
    And neither does Amazon. And yet they claim to.
Devilboy 16y ago
I'd expect Amazon to at least wait for a court order before just shutting down a client like that.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Me too, and in that case I would not have a problem with it. It's not as if they didn't know what wikileaks was up to before this happened.
- nextparadigms 16y ago
  Yes, thank you! Amazon could've easily told them they're going to wait for a court order since that is what's needed to prove Wikileaks was in the wrong here. Clearly, they shouldn't have rejected them as fast as they did when it was sucha controversial issue. Even the paedophile book lasted longer than Wikileaks on Amazon. This should speak volumes about the political pressure Amazon was under when Lieberman called.
kmfrk 16y ago
Replace "Terms of Service" with "beliefs" and "ethics" and see if that comment just sounds a little weird? :) Everyone has different opinions (Terms of Services), but why can we not judge someone on those?

by cmelbye 16y ago

They have a Terms of Service, and like (literally) every hosting provider on the planet, they will take down your site if you violate the agreement that you agreed to when you signed up.

jacquesm 16y ago

And like every other webhosting provider on the planet they'll have to decide when they think it is time to stand up for their customers and when to let it go. Suppose you have a newspaper and you want to co-locate, Amazon is suddenly no longer an option. Really, the speed and ease with which they rolled over after some political pressure is quite amazing to me, I had them pegged as 'solid' before.

sliverstorm 16y ago
If they were solid in your experience in the past, perhaps this time there were special mitigating factors in this case we are not aware of, or have not recognized? One thing that pops to mind is WikiLeaks was promising to expose the secrets of all big businesses everywhere. It makes no sense whatsoever for Amazon to support someone promising to do that, unless Amazon has no secrets they wish to keep.
olefoo 16y ago
It was somewhat craven of them, on the other hand; I can see it from their point of view Senator Lieberman can make life very difficult for them vis-a-vis local sales tax charged on goods sold across state lines. In my mind Amazon is reacting in a way that protects their short-term interests but they do not realize that they have now given a clear signal that they will cave to pressure.
nikcub 16y ago
esp considering that they spent a few days defending the child pedo guide on the grounds of free speech The Guardian used Amazon to host the app they built that allowed readers to filter through and flag the Afghan war logs. No takedown from Amazon there! Hypocrites.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Even the Neo Nazis have a right to free speech. And they're despicable too. That does not mean that free speech as such is wrong, just that some speech is reprehensible.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    "I hate Illinois Nazis."
  - smcl 16y ago
    There is a school of thought that once Nazis are invoked, the argument is automatically forfeit by whomever issued the remark.

cma 16y ago

BS, if they hosted the NYT and the NYT posted a leaked document, they wouldn't take them down. It all depends on power relations, perceived legitimacy, etc.; the only thing it has nothing to do with is their terms of service.

tptacek 16y ago
I too think Amazon wouldn't have taken down the NYT. On the other hand, had WL not violated the AWS AUP, I also don't think Amazon would have taken them down, either. The point is, if you don't violate the Amazon ToS, this is a non-issue (outside of personal politics, which is a fine reason not to do business with them, but a bit out of scope for this discussion.)
- jbooth 16y ago
  What exactly was the violation of the ToS again? Honest question, I really don't know. At any rate, I'd amend your "if you don't violate the ToS" to "if you don't attract a phone call from a cranky old senator's office", since that's what seems to have prompted the action.
  - smhinsey 16y ago
    The violation was cited as being that Wikileaks does not own the content they posted.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Those who don't know history...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
- cma 16y ago
  If you post public-domain material to your site, you don't "own, or otherwise control all the rights" to it. There is no jurisprudence that says posting public-domain material isn't exactly what Wikileaks did. (People with security clearance have been successfully prosecuted for publicly leaking/publishing classified information; no recipient lacking security clearance ever has) If the rest of the TOS is full of stuff like that, it would be doubtful it would even be possible to run a significant site without in some way violating the TOS. According to that TOS, one user-submitted comment of copyrighted content and your website could immediately be permanently pulled, even if you took the comment down as fast as humanly possible.

ajays 16y ago

What saddens me is that people are parroting this "violated ToS" line without even thinking about it. It doesn't matter whether you support WL or not; but at least do the bare minimum and _think_ about what you're writing? Where in the ToS does it say that "site can't host classified information" ? And why hasn't NYT's access be pulled yet, because NYT is serving the _same_ documents ? Here's a fact: US Government publications can't be copyrighted. Period. So while Amazon tries to hide behind these lies, they're also busy making money off of books about similar "leaks", like the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc.

gonzo 16y ago
Books and newspapers are protected by the First Amendment, maybe? Its not clear that wikileaks.org, self-publishing is "the press". Does Lovell v. City of Griffin hold? I don't know. Do you?
- newt 16y ago
  And neither does Amazon. And yet they claim to.

Devilboy 16y ago

I'd expect Amazon to at least wait for a court order before just shutting down a client like that.

jacquesm 16y ago
Me too, and in that case I would not have a problem with it. It's not as if they didn't know what wikileaks was up to before this happened.
nextparadigms 16y ago
Yes, thank you! Amazon could've easily told them they're going to wait for a court order since that is what's needed to prove Wikileaks was in the wrong here. Clearly, they shouldn't have rejected them as fast as they did when it was sucha controversial issue. Even the paedophile book lasted longer than Wikileaks on Amazon. This should speak volumes about the political pressure Amazon was under when Lieberman called.

kmfrk 16y ago

Replace "Terms of Service" with "beliefs" and "ethics" and see if that comment just sounds a little weird? :) Everyone has different opinions (Terms of Services), but why can we not judge someone on those?