If the headline of an article can be responded to with a simple "yes" or "no," there's likely a lack of content.
In this case, it's 'no.' There's a reference to a previous boycott over Amazon that happened a few years ago around Amazon not showing some GLBTetc-friendly items, and was resolved because enough people supported it. In the case of WikiLeaks I'm fairly certain that those who would even care that Amazon wouldn't continue hosting WikiLeaks would still be a large portion of an online-based population that cares that WikiLeaks exists at all. Not exactly an issue that affects most homes or families in a direct manner. WikiLeaks went to Amazon for hosting, Amazon said yes then was pressured out of it, WikiLeaks found other hosting. If they'd have chosen 1&1 or most other hosts and were turned down, no one would be giving much of a damn.
In this case, it's 'no.' There's a reference to a previous boycott over Amazon that happened a few years ago around Amazon not showing some GLBTetc-friendly items, and was resolved because enough people supported it. In the case of WikiLeaks I'm fairly certain that those who would even care that Amazon wouldn't continue hosting WikiLeaks would still be a large portion of an online-based population that cares that WikiLeaks exists at all. Not exactly an issue that affects most homes or families in a direct manner. WikiLeaks went to Amazon for hosting, Amazon said yes then was pressured out of it, WikiLeaks found other hosting. If they'd have chosen 1&1 or most other hosts and were turned down, no one would be giving much of a damn.