Leaving aside whether the clause itself is objectionable, since when does "full ownership" mean you can do whatever you want? Am I allowed to drive my car on public roads without a license?
I realize there is some political opinion in there and feel your point warrants a more thoughtful response. Let me think about this...
In that context, I read their desire for "full ownership" to mean "I can use these resources for any lawful purpose, unencumbered by additional contractual constraints made at the whim of my provider."
And it's a limited concept, in any case. I mean, you'd have no problem hosting anything as a Tor onion site, or on Freenet. You don't "own" either platform, but they're designed to guarantee decent anonymity, and takedown resistence. However, it's all too easy to screw up and lose your site, and perhaps your freedom. So you gotta know what you're doing, and practice good OPSEC.
I mentioned Freenet and Tor because they're designed to provide privacy and protect against censorship, even though users don't own the full stack.
Unfortunately, I didn't think of that :(
Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive.
However, practically speaking, I think the OP would probably be fine posting on AWS, as others have remarked.
Because you're not free if you can't do that.
> Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive.
Then you can chain Tor with other anonymity networks. Such as nested VPN chains, Orchid, or LokiNet.
Based on what I've seen, people have generally been pwned because they screwed up, and not through fundamental compromises.