UNI’s demands were clear: either remove all material except the critique of Amazon or hide UNI’s funding. (It was suggested that Tech Inquiry wait six months before publishing its analysis of Microsoft and Google.)
The funders don't want to be associated with the report because they don't support it. Remove their names from the report and publish it as much as you like.
And if an organization funded a report, it is unethical to hide that information. It is absolutely standard to attach notices of non-endorsement after funding disclosures.
“Remove data we don’t like, or alternatively remove our names” is two options of… removing data, be it Microsoft or the funder.
If “take information out of your report” is not an attempt at censorship, what is?
I think those are two different things.
I'm equally surprised that the military buys boots from a large volume boot company and not a boutique corner shoe shop.
I read some more of the paper and the core of the argument seems to be that it sucks no European company has a good cloud.
Such an agreement is worth reporting, not a "nothingburger"
The post is not bringing the news that a customer chose a supplier.