I would say it perfectly displays what wikileaks was for them: just another regular client and they are not going to bend over just for one "small fish", no matter how beloved and important this one fish is amongst the tech savvy crowd.
I think it's important to separate a rejection from a termination. Apparently, Wikileaks has been hosted on EC2 for over a month[1], which makes Amazon's decision a termination instead of a rejection.
I could also understand if Amazon didn't notice Wikileaks for a few days, but weeks?
Getting rejected poses no problem for anyone; there are grey areas, and everyone needs to draw a line.
But getting pulled after being hosted for several weeks? What changed?
Amazon pulling Wikileaks has created a Damoclean sword in the minds of people who consider to use AWS in the future.
