|
|
|
|
|
|
by avner
5671 days 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. |
|
|
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.