[pigbucket]

I recognize that this is a soundbite version of recent history and tangential to the main point of the article, but just for the sake of contrarianism: Google is the company that pulled out of China in opposition to government-sponsored censorship; Amazon is the company that cut Wikileaks loose in response to government-requested censorship. There's more to judging a company's "interestingness" than its apparent antipathy to elitism.

[0x12]

Google is the company that first played ball with the Chinese government first and pulled out after the Chinese hacked them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8455712.stm

It had nothing to do with 'government-sponsored censorship', in fact, google showed different results to Chinese nationals on the other side of the line and the rest of the world for specific queries for a long time.

[watty]

The hacks were an attempt at surveillance, most likely from the government.

"These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china...

[danssig]

Google is the company that claimed to pull out of China and didn't until they got hacked. They're also the company that just pulled a particularly sneaky bait-n-switch on it's paying customer base. Amazon is no angel but neither is Google. They're both public for-profit companies and nothing else.

[sixtofour]

"They're both public for-profit companies and nothing else."

This is the only view, and the only thing approaching a value judgement, that can apply to a large (enough) company.

It's like befriending a wolf in the wild. It may lick your hand, and bark at danger, but it could easily take your hand off and no one would blame it for being true to its nature. In fact you'd be chastised for not treating it with the caution it demands.