/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

Can we use S3 and EC2 to host free speech?

As far as I know the issues around Amazon's decision to evict WikiLeaks from EC2 have not been discussed in the tech blogosphere.  If I've missed the discussion, please post pointers in a comment on this post.  I want to read what has been said.

Scripting News Dave Winer

Context & Ripple Effects

The question lands three weeks after Amazon's denial that it dropped WikiLeaks because of a government inquiry — an eviction that left the stated reason ambiguous while WikiLeaks faced no charges from the Justice Department over its State Department disclosures. A spate of DDoS attacks around the document dump has kept the hosting question live, and policy makers are already pushing tighter internet controls in the leaks' wake.

What makes this post pointed is its timing on Christmas Day 2010 and its observation that the tech blogosphere has largely not engaged with what the eviction means for the platforms everyone else builds on. S3 and EC2 are where independent publishing increasingly lives, so Amazon's terms-of-service discretion is effectively a speech policy — one set by contract rather than by any court.

First-order effects

  • WikiLeaks is off EC2 entirely, and every other publisher hosting politically sensitive material on AWS now knows its tenure rests on Amazon's unilateral reading of acceptable use rather than legal process.

Second-order effects

  • Amazon must either articulate where its terms stop and lawful-but-unwelcome speech begins, or accept that customers weighing WikiLeaks-style risk will price self-hosting back into their infrastructure decisions.

Third-order effects

  • If the pattern holds — a host evicts an uncharged publisher and faces little sustained industry debate — the effective guarantee of online speech migrates from courts and due process to the terms of service of a handful of infrastructure providers.

The trend: Cloud infrastructure is becoming the de facto arbiter of what can be published online, with provider terms of service displacing legal process as the operative test for controversial speech.