
Boycott Amazon? Not doing it. - davewiner
http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/06/boycottAmazonNotDoingIt.html
======
jdp23
Dave's argument against even a partial boycott:

1) he probably would have done the same thing as Amazon 2) Amazon's got
competition so it's not that big a deal if they don't stand up for free speech
3) he depends on Amazon a lot 4) last time he boycotted Amazon (over one-
click), some other open tech advocats didn't so he felt his stand was
pointless

Given all that, he suggests that now isn't the right time to take "a
principled stand" by boycotting

~~~
davewiner
Nasty!

To start with your #1, what I actually said (and meant) was: "I'm not sure I
wouldn't have done exactly what they did"

And the rest of your list is just as bad.

So if you need to mis-state what someone says to "prove" them wrong, then you
don't really believe in what you believe in.

Which is, btw, what?

Are you boycotting Amazon?

If so, what are you giving up?

~~~
danilocampos
"I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did"

Maybe I'm having trouble parsing the double negative, but doesn't that mean
what OP said it means? If not, what does it mean instead?

~~~
kragen
It means he _possibly_ would have done what they did, not _probably_.

~~~
danilocampos
If so, that strikes me as difference without distinction.

"I might have done the same thing" and "I'd probably have done the same
thing", in practical conversation, end up being sliced at the difference
between 49% probability and 51%, right?

~~~
kragen
I read it as about 1% in this case.

~~~
danilocampos
Well, that would be stated as "I probably _would not_ ," wouldn't it? You can
say, at that point, with certitude, that most of the money is on not doing as
Amazon did.

------
rbanffy
"They aren't the guarantors of anyone's rights, that's the government's job"

But what you do when your government refuses to do its job? Sit and wait until
it decides to protect free speech?

I think the US government officials are taking this too personally. That's
what they wrote, right? Shouldn't they stand behind their own words?

I agree this whole cablegate thing is annoying and I would be annoyed in their
place, but I seriously doubt this will impact significantly US diplomacy. It's
news to me and you, but it certainly isn't news to whoever they wrote about.

~~~
khafra
> It's news to me and you, but it certainly isn't news to whoever they wrote
> about.

Simple knowledge can have drastically different effects than public knowledge,
as can be quickly illustrated in a simplified form[1].

[1] <http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html>

------
iterationx
People always expect someone else to stand against the government, they won't
do it themselves since there are negative consequences for that behavior, but
its easy to pontificate with self righteous indignation.

~~~
pyre
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how is boycotting Amazon taking a stand
against the government? It seems to be more about punishing someone else for
_not_ taking a stand against the government.

------
yoak
It doesn't violate someone's right to free speech or any other right for a
company to fail to provide a service to them. A company having to provide
service to some particular entity only violates one set of rights - those of
the company.

~~~
andrewcooke
I'm not sure what your point is here? You're saying that you can define
freedom of speech in a narrow way so that Amazon is off the hook. Great.

But that doesn't change what they've done - it just makes you look like a
lawyer making excuses for the inexcusable.

~~~
pyre
It sounds more like this: "If Amazon is wrong for refusing service to someone
that is hosting potentially-controversial content, then that implies that no
hosting company can refuse service to such a person. I.e. that person is
'untouchable.'"

This seems to cross lines with the 'Affirmative Action'-type arguments: that
in an effort to 'make up' for past wrong against black people we are making it
impossible to refuse X (where X could be employment, etc) to a black person,
even if the reason isn't because of their skin color.

{update} I was only attempting to clarify what I thought that the parent
poster (gp to this post) was getting at.

------
rwhitman
From a business perspective, if Wikileaks is charged with federal crimes, and
Amazon is still hosting it, that would roll amazon into the investigation and
open them up to whatever charges the US govn't might throw at them. Is it good
business for Amazon to potentially get sucked into federal investigations or
congressional hearings? Not to mention all the bad mainstream press they began
getting. And I wouldn't be surprised if the federal govn't is an AWS customer.

Whether its right or wrong thats just a mess nobody needs. While I support
Wikileaks first amendment rights I don't think you can blame Amazon for not
wanting to get embroiled in the battle

------
forza
I can't say I was surprised by Amazons actions, but somewhat by their
motivation behind those actions.

I think this should serve as a wake up call for founders who maybe to easily
trust a third party with essential parts of their business. As the real
question should be what happens when a special interest group pressures Amazon
to take down your startup? Do you have external backup?, is your codebase
adapted to Amazon? etc.

I think it's in the interest of all service providers to be seen as just only
a service provider. There was quite a big discussion about this in Sweden
several years ago which made Bahnhof start the "integrity" initiative[1]. This
is, among other things, why Wikileaks have been hosted in Sweden for a long
time.

[1]
[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://integrity.st/)

------
tzs
The only difference between Amazon and most other hosting companies is tha the
others don't let you start if your site will violate their TOS or AUP. Amazon
has automatic activation, so violating sites get a few days service before
being rejected.

------
dnsworks
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Communist.

..

It's OK to ignore abuse when by doing so you are enabled to maintain your
financial status.

