Leaving aside whether the clause itself is objectionable, since when does "full ownership" mean you can do whatever you want? Am I allowed to drive my car on public roads without a license?
My gut reaction response to this is that is a false equivalence as one can have a chilling effect on free speech by a corporation, while the other constitutes a useful safety rule by a government that is supposed to have our consent to govern.
I realize there is some political opinion in there and feel your point warrants a more thoughtful response. Let me think about this...
The original author isn't clear, and I would not have used that phrase, but the focus is on restrictions made and enforced by AWS.
In that context, I read their desire for "full ownership" to mean "I can use these resources for any lawful purpose, unencumbered by additional contractual constraints made at the whim of my provider."
I don't understand the premise. Why would one expect to be able to interact with the world without any consequences ? That makes little sense, philosophically, at least to me.
Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive.
However, practically speaking, I think the OP would probably be fine posting on AWS, as others have remarked.
Sure, "full ownership" means owning the entire stack.
And it's a limited concept, in any case. I mean, you'd have no problem hosting anything as a Tor onion site, or on Freenet. You don't "own" either platform, but they're designed to guarantee decent anonymity, and takedown resistence. However, it's all too easy to screw up and lose your site, and perhaps your freedom. So you gotta know what you're doing, and practice good OPSEC.
First you say "full ownership" means "owning the entire stack," but then you go on and talk about using things you don't own, such as Tor, or Freenet. You talk about "screw[ing] up, and los[ing] your site or your freedom," as if you might have to hide what you're doing. None of that sounds like "full ownership" to me.
I mean that "full ownership" implies "owning the entire stack". Which in any useful context is arguably impossible. So "full ownership" just isn't a useful way to think about this.
I mentioned Freenet and Tor because they're designed to provide privacy and protect against censorship, even though users don't own the full stack.
I realize there is some political opinion in there and feel your point warrants a more thoughtful response. Let me think about this...