Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust.
Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
And there is no reason to believe that the growth would not have continued without Amazon's participation.
There's the simple fact that many major non Amazon companies are also supporting Rust, so I don't see how this is uniquely Amazon's contributions.
This argument appears akin to the original article's "Rustacean principles are based on Amazon tenets" BS.
Maybe, but that's only because Rust was valuable enough to them to do so. It also doesn't give them a pass on a takeover, if that is what's going on.
(No skin in this game. I just can't stand corporate gaslighting about how open source developers need to suck up abuse and like it because reasons.)
I wouldn't want a company like Google to think that Amazon has too much control over the direction of the language and choose not to use it, for example.
"Amazon must or should define Rust".
"I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.
"Oh, representative of mega-corp, we can't do that . I agree it's a great idea and I would love to do it, but the zealots would revolt."