Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure

I'm not the OP, but maybe a way to put it is that impacts are more variable or chaotic?

Generally speaking, the "impact" of a US government entity is reasonably predictable based on US policy and interests. Something like NSO, where tools are sold on the market to many entities are probably less predictable and thus more impactful. I'd expect a lower level of operational discipline from than from the US military.

The other factor is who are NSO Group's masters, and what do they know? If compromises , does get intel?

Some here in the states don't exactly feel like the people running the USG have the people's best interests at heart. Common folk across countries probably have more in common with each other than with the ruling elite.

State-sponsored terrorism is a thing - and has been for a LONG time. And US citizens are targets as well as non-citizens.

You're going to have to be more specific than a handwave-y "lots of people" to have good online discussions. You also need to be specific in your terminology. You need to actually address the specific people and their arguments, or else do a much better job of phrasing an inquiry into theoretical tradeoffs. Ie., from your other reply:

>What I don't understand is why AWS is justified to shut them down; but Google or Facebook is not justified in preventing their platforms from being propaganda distribution channels?

So I do in fact think Google and Facebook at 100% "justified" to shut them down, and I think Amazon is too. I do have lines where I think morally, if not legally, a service can start to drift into quasi-governmental (or perhaps should be that way) territory. An example for me would be core physical infrastructure companies, not just at Tier 3 but also at Tiers 2 and 1. I think those should operate as common carriers. But I don't think social media fits. Not using it at all (as I don't) may have "costs" in terms of social opportunities but alternatives are trivial.

So for me there isn't any dissonance here, I generally support "Big Tech" (and everyone down the ladder) associating as they see fit when it comes to ongoing online service relationships within existing jurisprudence. The initial legal tweaks I'd like would be aimed at things like expanding user power in a purely additive way (like giving people the option to access root hardware/software key stores), or internalizing costs some companies are shifting onto the public, rather then beating down what some people don't like.

Hacker News (and every other forum) aren't hive mind and it's silly and tiresome to have them treated that way. What you did in your first post here was essentially throw up a big silly strawman.

No response is a response and in this kind of situation it is explicit "I will not do anything and I'm dishonest enough to not acknowledge that.".

As a matter of law in the United States you are objectively wrong. This has been settled in a series of SCOTUS decisions starting with Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Corporations are legal persons, and further the individual humans that make them up do not somehow lose the free speech rights just because they decide to take collective action.

And in turn: as a matter of morality, common sense and the point of free speech you're also wrong. It's important that people be able to speak to power, and a core part of that for humanity is socializing, being able to form groups to support each other and pool ideas, skills and resources to have a greater effect than what any individual alone could accomplish. Seriously, you say "corporations don't have free speech rights"? Exactly what form of combined effort do you imagine most, say, NEWSPAPERS are organized under? So what, you think individuals should be able to investigate something all by themselves, but the government should be free to put the boot down on newspapers because they're corporations? You think that jives with free speech?

Oh maybe you only meant "the bad ones". That makes it very easy, but no reason to limit it to corps in this case, just stop "the bad humans" too and everything is great. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan, since everyone agrees who "the bad ones" are.....