The latter half of the proposition is not unsound in principle, but it is rendered largely ineffective by the vast majority of consumers who will not take action in relation to a corporations misdemeanours – long history and common sense suggests that (except in certain unusual cases, such as when Shell wanted to sink that oil platform – incidentally, not necessarily such a terrible thing to do) what consumers will respond to is value, and specifically, the perception that they are or are not receiving it. You or I might agitate against Google and Skype because they help the Chinese government round up thought criminals, but what percentage of people using Google is going to do the same?

And what are we to do when ‘choice’ is strictly limited by the fact that all of the key players in a market have approximately the same record? For instance, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have all done their share of collaborating with evil governments – yet they provide certain services which are not easily found elsewhere.

The parallels to modern Western-liberal democracy are quite marked, actually…

No, that is not what it is an example of. The Chinese government, now THAT is an out of control monster accountable to no-one. Skype is quite accountable and you can personally punish them by refusing to do business with them and encouraging others to do likewise. Damage their brand (i.e. do what the article on this very blog is wisely doing to Skype and Google) and make them pay (quite literally) by imposing a negative marketing cost for their direct support for totalitarianism. Even better, when you tell people to not use Skype or Google, point out the other alternatives they can use (who are of course also corporations, just ones who have not taken the Devil’s Shilling). Try doing that to an allegedly ‘accountable’ government by casting your single puny democratic vote and see how far it gets you in the winner takes all world of nation-state politics.