Morally, it's still the right thing to do, even though I guess it's in amazon's best interests not to allow it.
I counter it would be more immoral to put, say, the retirement funds of firefighters and teachers arty risk to achieve what is the responsibility of, say, the State Department?
Further, the fiduciary myth is silly as a premise upon any inspection: legally who gets to decide what's the one right ideal path for optimizing shareholder value, such that if you don't follow The One True Path then you're failing shareholders. Any other path than the single best one, would be inherently defined as failing the fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value (which is another way of saying: legally it's an impossible concept to implement; and logically it's stupid, it falls down instantly, no person could know the maximization path at all times). It doesn't pass even a minute of rational intellectual scrutiny.
I mean, that made the shareholders money, right?
"Databases" is maybe not the right word?
Not a historian.
Russia BTW bombs civilian targets like hospitals and they killed their own bank sites when they tried to block Telegram recently.
In this case it's just like being in a city. They're not trying to take advantage of any particularly sensitive institution.
They are. Amazon. And previously, Google.
The worst-case consequence is not people losing access to Amazon store, but losing access to anything that's powered by Amazon cloud. People operating all kinds of services hosted on Amazon servers are the patients and hospital staff from my example.
A ban of a cloud service affects everything else that depends on it. The more popular a service, the more damage. That's the point of "collateral freedom".
(Note the name of the term. It's no accident. It comes from "collateral damage".)
But if they were going to nuke the city? Fuck them, don't negotiate, it is absolutely not the fault of any group that is merely located somewhere inside the city.
My point is - by employing domain fronting against censorship, you bet that the adversary will not ban the service you're using as a front. But they very well might just do that. At this point, everyone else using the service suffers. So that service, by refusing to be used as a domain front, is not just protecting its own interest - it's protecting interests of all the others who depend on it. You, on the other hand, are unilaterally putting those other people at risk. This does not make you a hero, it makes you a villain (even if a lesser one).
The domain fronting could be set up in a way that doesn't spoof domains, and the risks would be exactly the same. The spoofing is a red herring. The issue is the mere idea that a censor would be unable to tell what domain a connection is for. The actual thing that puts people at risk is ridiculous to attack on a moral basis. It's the same as just existing in a crowd. Not grabbing someone to be your shield.
It's like helping Assad to find targets where people with opposing views live.
People don't realize doing stuff like this is just going to make lives worse once these regimes block Amazon/Google/whatever.