[tradersam]

I had a large argument about this on r/conspiracy with someone recently.

They were claiming since the CIA uses AWS to the tune of ~$900 million a year, the CIA has a direct line to WaPo.

Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue, but it does pose an interesting, all be it slight, conflict.

[jsmthrowaway]

A paper does not achieve the prestige and respect that WaPo commands by allowing it to be a conflict. Sure, there are a number of papers at which that could be a conflict, but Amazon or its customers reaching into the WaPo newsroom to spike, push, or alter a story would almost certainly trigger a mass exodus starting with the editors involved. Bear in mind that the newsroom employs people with their own, respected, careers to look after, just like when trading firms demand their traders sacrifice their reputations.

At that level, editorial independence is practically a commandment, and Marty Baron wouldn't allow conflicts like that to happen. Think about it, since any of that would have to go through him, the guy who went after the Catholics in Boston. You're telling me he gets to the Washington Post, of all places, and hangs up his integrity? Come on.

It's amazing how often those fake news theories fly in the face of simple logic, and amazing how effective they are at swaying people who do not utilize it or do not understand how a newsroom works. That's probably the failure we're seeing unfold, that journalism has emphasized content over form and failed to educate the public on exactly how it works, and is asking readers to overlook their increasing distrust in institutions. Journalism looking something like "I spoke to blah, she said blah," with recordings next to the text, rather than the way it's currently written in the third person, is probably a necessary evolution now.

[tradersam]

I completely agree with you — you're preaching to the choir, bud. But "conspiracy theorists" will make an excuse to discredit them, regardless.

[mcphage]

> But "conspiracy theorists" will make an excuse to discredit them, regardless.

Conspiracy theorists will always find because they want to. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about what they will or won’t latch on to, because worrying about it implies that if something wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t latch on to something else. But they always will.

[AnkhMorporkian]

Apologies for being a grammar nazi but I thought I'd let you know that it isn't 'all be it', it's "albeit."

[tradersam]

I assumed that but really didn't care. Language is cool like that — when you know how rules apply and are interpreted, you can break them at will.

[AnkhMorporkian]

Fair enough. I couldn't stop myself from putting it out there, but I also believe that as long as it's intelligible that it really doesn't matter how you put it.

[tradersam]

Sorry if I sounded harsh, I actually appreciate your correction, but was trying to mainly say what you said in the second half of your statement.

[scott_karana]

Why isn't that possible, if only in the "pissed of CEO talks to subsidiary president"?

AWS grosses ~$4Bn yearly, so if the CIA truly spends $0.9Bn (~23%) favours can happen and doors can get opened.

There's nothing "direct" about that, to be sure, but "give me WaPo EOC's cell number" is viable.

[mikeokner]

> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue

Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk of change for even the largest companies in the world.

[CalChris]

That's $900M/yr of revenue. At AWS. And the WashPo is entirely different company.

Nope.

[kbenson]

Not to mention that's less than 10% of Amazon yearly revenue from AWS alone.[1] Gambling an entire business on the fact that nobody will find out you're giving away their proprietary information just for an extra bump in revenue of a couple points does not sound sane to me. For another perspective, the profit AWS generates is multiples of that entire $900M.

1: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-cloud-business-hits-o...

[SimbaOnSteroids]

They also built them AWS Secret.

[CalChris]

Yes, but that's included in that $900M/yr of revenue. It isn't an extra revenue line.

[jtmcmc]

in 2016 amazon's annual revenue was 136 billion dollars. That means it was .66% of it's total revenue. I would argue that the potential damage to Amazon's brand is quite a bit more than that.