None of the above. Receiving email with potentially malicious content would be so devastating for some organizations that it's not worth the security risk. While it's unlikely their security would be breached by an unknown vulnerability, if they were breached, the data loss would be devastating. Thus, when they can receive documents through a secure fax which could not breach their database, they will sometimes opt to receive transmissions through fax.

In organizations that have access to large databases of sensitive information, the security risk makes secure faxes preferable. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service has access to nearly everyone's financial information, a security breach, however unlikely it might be, would be devastating.

True, but if Bing will produce customized searches equivalent to holding a mirror up to someone's face, people might opt for Bing instead of Google's "high road." I agree with you that it's better for society to have an opt-in system, I just imagine it might be too risky for a company to implement such a system.
These two systems revolve around how badly people want their mirrors.

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, [Eric Schmidt] elaborates. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

Google has mentioned a number of times that customization is a major feature of their searches. While this summary isn't without cause to be nervous about such a thing, instead of algorithms to correct algorithms, it's no major feat to allow users to disable some of the non-spam related algorithms. In fact, it's no major feat to disable algorithms by subcategory: geographical location, operating system, language, search history, etc.

Exactly. It's not ironic at all.

Wikipedia thinks having diverse contributors helps develop well-written, unbiased comprehensive treatments on various subjects. In this case, the argument goes, topics of typically male interest tend to receive more attention from the larger male contributor base, whereas topics of typical female interest receive less.

Seems a statement of suspicious sketch. As long as I've been paying attention to Wikipedia there've been rules and guidelines to promote particular behaviours and dissuade others, from writing styles to definitions of what counts as evidence. Is the author saying the hackerish Wikipedia base will co-operate with other guidelines, but not ones promoting diversity? Suspect.
Futher, "adopting openness means being 'open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,'" also seems to be non-intuitive. I wonder what evidence drew those conclusions. If it was a Wikipedia article, at least I could follow the citation.

A bonus disagree comes from

"According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,” a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages.

It would seem to be an irony that Wikipedia, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise."

I don't think that's ironic at all. 85% of experts wear black socks, ironically 85% of the population also wears black socks.

I think toastar was referring to doublethink. That something that's the height of journalist integrity is being criticised as being so bad it is beyond "journalistic failure."

While I appreciate all who fight the good fight for a better breasted television of tomorrow, I think the disjunction is between a freedom and a right.
We have freedom of publication, which means the government can't stop you from making a publication, but we don't have a right, which means the government is not obligated to cover costs related to publication. The same goes for your example of the freedom to gather, it's not a right, and the government isn't required to pick up travel costs of anyone who wants to gather anywhere.
And I'm glad, I don't want to fund a government that makes all those examples rights.

In my opinion it is despicable for them to discriminate against customers based on political beliefs

I completely disagree. I don't know how discrimination works where you are, but in Canada discrimination laws only apply to groups. So if John Hitler Smith came in to my shop, and I know him because he's a prominent author who advocates segregation, I can tell him to take a hike if I want to. In Canada, the government only steps in if I refuse to serve a group of people, such as Asians, or supporters of the Liberal political party. Otherwise, the business is mine and will be run as I see fit.
Another intuitive example is how we view business property. A business is private property, and the police will come and remove someone based solely on my whim. If I tried to go to the mall and hand out pamphlets about a controversial topic, I will be removed and I will not have any voice on the issue just because they discriminated "against [a customer] based on political beliefs." It isn't public property even though it's used by the public.
If Amazon doesn't want to fight the good fight with Wikileaks, so be it, that's their choice. I wish they would, and because they can, I think less of them, but I wouldn't describe it as despicable or disgusting, and it's certainly not discrimination.

I agree it's unlikely. DDOS'ing is a less effective means compared to their recent practice of seizing the domain.

Actually the Canadian party in power is a minority government. Right now they don't have absolute power. ;)