> Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. I was wrong to say that you can't blame Amazon for doing what they do -- what I should hav

> Sharks are animals: amoral, without judgement for their behavior. I was wrong to say that you can't blame Amazon for doing what they do -- what I should have said was that people shouldn't be "surprised". Work yourself into a fit over it if you want, but the next time it happens, you shouldn't be surprised. My point was meant to be that sharks do shark things, and companies that are Amazon's size do things that companies at Amazon's size would do. Both happenings should not illicit much surprise. > AWS is a company made up of human beings, with the capacity to choose to do good. If they do things that we would consider to be immoral, we can absolutely blame and judge them for that, regardless of whether it's "what they do". This is great in theory, but there are such things as shareholders, fiduciary duty, and binding financial covenants. Companies have a capacity to choose to do good, but they have a stronger duty to produce profit for stakeholders. Companies can be ethical, but there is no reason to believe that they will be unless it's written into their bylaws, or they are structured differently from the outset (ex. Mozilla Foundation). Another article hit the front page from 2019 about Google vetoing the power of a privacy-focused W3C working group to prevent technical changes that would hurt privacy. This is another instance -- you can blame and gnash your teeth all you want, but Google is going to do what Google does, and that's offer technological advancement and ease at the cost of privacy (sometimes) if it helps them sell more/more expensive ads.