This is the internal inconsistency that troubles me about this whole WikiLeaks thing. We've railed on companies constantly in the past for being political, and now we're railing on them for not being sufficiently political in
our favor.
So which will it be?
This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance.
To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past.
So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)?
Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.
So which will it be?
This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance.
To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past.
So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)?
Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.