Bob Murphy is missing the point

In short: Amazon created a precedent of a corporation caving in to government pressure on the Wikileaks matter, and while we cannot undo it, we must make it feel that that decision comes with consequences, at least to the extent that we can help it.

Responding specifically to Murphy’s points:

• Is Amazon being singled out because it was unfortunate enough to have its servers chosen for hosting by Wikileaks in the first place? Well, yes — very much like somebody who was “unfortunate enough” to have a Jewish family fleeing from Nazis show up on their doorsteps in the middle of the night asking for help, just to be turned away. How many other people in that neighborhood lacked the courage to act differently? Probably a few, and you can’t be even sure about yourself until you actually live through that situation (which I hope you don’t). Does this make the act less cowardly? No. Never been in that situation ourselves, do we have a moral right to condemn what we see as cowardice? Yes, because this is how moral standards are established and maintained. When we do, we have a bigger chance of upholding them ourselves when the time comes.

• But shouldn’t we give Amazon a break for allowing Wikileaks on its servers in the first place? Many people would, except for the fact that it’s not what happened. Contrary to how Murphy portrays it, Amazon didn’t “support” Wikileaks and in general didn’t know anything about Wikileaks choosing its servers until those servers went online with their controversial content and things got hot (the same way how it’s not going to know if you sign up for Amazon Web Services right now with an intent to create a Wikileaks mirror; it’s a automated system, a credit card is all you need to get your own server up & running, in minutes).

• Okay, but if we boycott Amazon, shouldn’t we boycott other corporations that are known to not support Wikileaks? In cases when there is a chance it’ll make a difference, yes. PayPal is a good candidate. Also, Amazon was the fist bastion that could have given Lieberman et al. a decent fight, but decided to throw in the towel before the fight even started. The easy victory empowered the attackers and made it easier for others to surrender. PayPal was quick to follow, and I’m sure Amazon’s quick and shameless surrender was a factor. If Amazon didn’t understand the significance of its surrender at the time (which I doubt), too bad. The goal of the boycott is to give them a reason to think twice next time.

• Aren’t we committing hypocrisy though, by condemning Amazon while paying taxes that go to the very government that is trying to shut down Wikileaks? Uhm, where do I start… The only condition under which Murphy’s argument would make sense would be us completely giving up on our government, declaring it — and underlying principles of representative democracy — corrupt beyond repair, but still somehow letting it rule our lives. I’m sure some people feel that way and may be Murphy is among them, but most of us have a less grim outlook on the world. There are more direct and better ways to influence the government’s course on a particular issue than refusing to pay taxes, and yes, by all means we should exercise them to get Lieberman and others under control and eventually out of the office, ASAP. If you know of a more effective way to incentivize corporations, such as Amazon and PayPal, to be less complicit with arbitrary government threats next time, let me know.

Update: A Twitter search led me to this excellent essay that eloquently concludes with a similar verdict.