4 ms·

AWS’s stated reasons seem pretty sound to me: https://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/ https://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/

mardifoufs 2y ago
Okay, so what? That you agree with the political motivation behind the decision does not make the decision any less politically motivated, proving that AWS does in fact kick out consumers based on politics.
- aaronbrethorst 2y ago
  just because you say it was politically motivated doesn't make it so.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    The fact that people will disagree about what's political and what isn't is precisely why censorship, in general, is illegal. Because when people have power over others (including censorship power) it's guaranteed they'll abuse it, even if simply by being convinced their own interpretation of reality is correct.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    They literally say it is! In the very article they state that the documents will end up hurting american interests. How is that not political?
    - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
      "They literally say it is!" They literally do not say it is. Citation needed. Quote what you're referring to.
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        >It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. You can be obtuse about it if you want, but this is basically what it means. The only innocent people that the documents could've exposed would be related to american intelligence agencies One thing is for sure though, AWS has never terminated a website because they exposed Russian intelligence documents, or because they made non american classified documents public. If you are american, then you can obviously play dumb here but it is blatant for everyone else. And even beyond that, caring about the clearance level of a document is inherently political, and they explicitly say that it was one of the reasons for their decision to terminate WikiLeaks' hosting.
        aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        “Human rights groups have asked Wikileaks many times to do more to censor information found in documents. They fear reprisals against aid workers, activists and civilians named in the leaked data.” https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37165230.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37165230.amp
        mardifoufs 2y ago
        Okay? They didn't ask AWS to pull down the entire website though And again, AWS cited the fact that the documents were classified as being one of the reasons for the termination. You can't get more political than that. Especially when AWS does not care about it when it happens in other countries.
        aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        I’m coming to the conclusion that you and I have fundamentally different definitions of the word “political.” That’s fine.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Okay, so what? That you agree with the political motivation behind the decision does not make the decision any less politically motivated, proving that AWS does in fact kick out consumers based on politics.

aaronbrethorst 2y ago
just because you say it was politically motivated doesn't make it so.
- quantadev 2y ago
  The fact that people will disagree about what's political and what isn't is precisely why censorship, in general, is illegal. Because when people have power over others (including censorship power) it's guaranteed they'll abuse it, even if simply by being convinced their own interpretation of reality is correct.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  They literally say it is! In the very article they state that the documents will end up hurting american interests. How is that not political?
  - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
    "They literally say it is!" They literally do not say it is. Citation needed. Quote what you're referring to.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      >It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. You can be obtuse about it if you want, but this is basically what it means. The only innocent people that the documents could've exposed would be related to american intelligence agencies One thing is for sure though, AWS has never terminated a website because they exposed Russian intelligence documents, or because they made non american classified documents public. If you are american, then you can obviously play dumb here but it is blatant for everyone else. And even beyond that, caring about the clearance level of a document is inherently political, and they explicitly say that it was one of the reasons for their decision to terminate WikiLeaks' hosting.
      - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        “Human rights groups have asked Wikileaks many times to do more to censor information found in documents. They fear reprisals against aid workers, activists and civilians named in the leaked data.” https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37165230.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37165230.amp
        mardifoufs 2y ago
        Okay? They didn't ask AWS to pull down the entire website though And again, AWS cited the fact that the documents were classified as being one of the reasons for the termination. You can't get more political than that. Especially when AWS does not care about it when it happens in other countries.
        aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        I’m coming to the conclusion that you and I have fundamentally different definitions of the word “political.” That’s fine.