4 ms·

I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the sense that it was not published as a direct result of government intervention. But is

by pkinsky 11y ago

I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the sense that it was not published as a direct result of government intervention. But is this really a meaningful distinction? The book was prevented from being published in approximately the same way a book advocating communism would have been effectively banned from publication in the 1950s (via whisper campaigns, implied or explicit threats of blacklisting, etc). edit: sometimes this is justifiable: for example, a book titled 'Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong Un: misunderstood heroes?' would probably also be effectively banned via social pressure.

Someone1234 11y ago
I would absolutely agree if several publishers were colluding to make it so an author couldn't publish. That is what happened during mccarthyism. However in this specific case we're talking about one publisher not agreeing to publish. There's no presented information to assume collusion between publishers or some larger game at play to suppress this book or the author. I absolutely think that private organisations can effectively ban something without government intervention. I just don't think that happened here.
- pkinsky 11y ago
  > I absolutely think that private organisations can effectively ban something without government intervention. I just don't think that happened here. Oh, absolutely. To be honest I'm not terribly interested in the specifics of this case, just the general idea that today, when so much communication happens on privately-owned platforms, corporate censorship is not censorship because only governments censor.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the sense that it was not published as a direct result of government intervention. But is this really a meaningful distinction? Yes, there is a meaningful distinction between a publisher deciding not to publish a book, and a book being banned. While there may certainly be conditions where private action is so powerful in a given marketplace it is substantially equivalent to a government prohibition and raises the same issues, this isn't one. There are other publishers, and there has never been a time when self-publishing and bypassing major publishers -- especially for an already successful writer -- is easier. The fact that this whole complaint is actually a promotional piece for the book, which is in fact being published through Amazon's direct publishing offering, demonstrates exactly why the distinction between a publisher choosing not to publish a book and the book actually being banned is a meaningful -- night-and-day -- distinction. > The book was prevented from being published No, it was, in fact, not prevented from being published. The first two sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing."
- pkinsky 11y ago
  >No, it was, in fact, not prevented from being published. The first two sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing." Prevented from being published via established channels, then. The analogy still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish content considered communist in photocopied zines.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Prevented from being published via established channels, then. Kindle Direct Publishing has been around about as long as the Kindle (they were, IIRC, announced at the same time), and is backed by the dominant online book and ebook retailer. Its a pretty well-established channel. > The analogy still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish content considered communist in photocopied zines. The analogy does not, even remotely, hold, because such photocopied zines would not be available via major retail outlets, whereas Kindle Direct Publishing is directly sponsored by the dominant retail outlet.
Onolo 11y ago
Even with your example I don't see any justification for such a book to be banned/censored. Maybe I am too optimistic about society but I don't think there is any realistic harm from letting such a book be published, and a larger harm of false negatives under a set of rules that would censor such books.
- xbmcuser 11y ago
  This was mostly a business call publishing this book could make the publishers loose customers or even authors so they chose not to publish it. The author brilliantly is taking it as a business opportunity to market as something that was banned. With the american public so divided over right and left it will get a lot of publicity. Persoanlly I am for more people doing self publishing and not using the big 5 as that makes books cheaper for me. At the same time the topics and stories are not just those that are acceptable to particular group or ideology.
chrismcb 11y ago
I was under the impression the publisher felt they would lose sales because of it. So yeah there is a huge distinction.

by pkinsky 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago

I would absolutely agree if several publishers were colluding to make it so an author couldn't publish. That is what happened during mccarthyism. However in this specific case we're talking about one publisher not agreeing to publish. There's no presented information to assume collusion between publishers or some larger game at play to suppress this book or the author. I absolutely think that private organisations can effectively ban something without government intervention. I just don't think that happened here.

pkinsky 11y ago
> I absolutely think that private organisations can effectively ban something without government intervention. I just don't think that happened here. Oh, absolutely. To be honest I'm not terribly interested in the specifics of this case, just the general idea that today, when so much communication happens on privately-owned platforms, corporate censorship is not censorship because only governments censor.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the sense that it was not published as a direct result of government intervention. But is this really a meaningful distinction? Yes, there is a meaningful distinction between a publisher deciding not to publish a book, and a book being banned. While there may certainly be conditions where private action is so powerful in a given marketplace it is substantially equivalent to a government prohibition and raises the same issues, this isn't one. There are other publishers, and there has never been a time when self-publishing and bypassing major publishers -- especially for an already successful writer -- is easier. The fact that this whole complaint is actually a promotional piece for the book, which is in fact being published through Amazon's direct publishing offering, demonstrates exactly why the distinction between a publisher choosing not to publish a book and the book actually being banned is a meaningful -- night-and-day -- distinction. > The book was prevented from being published No, it was, in fact, not prevented from being published. The first two sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing."

pkinsky 11y ago
>No, it was, in fact, not prevented from being published. The first two sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing." Prevented from being published via established channels, then. The analogy still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish content considered communist in photocopied zines.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Prevented from being published via established channels, then. Kindle Direct Publishing has been around about as long as the Kindle (they were, IIRC, announced at the same time), and is backed by the dominant online book and ebook retailer. Its a pretty well-established channel. > The analogy still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish content considered communist in photocopied zines. The analogy does not, even remotely, hold, because such photocopied zines would not be available via major retail outlets, whereas Kindle Direct Publishing is directly sponsored by the dominant retail outlet.

Onolo 11y ago

Even with your example I don't see any justification for such a book to be banned/censored. Maybe I am too optimistic about society but I don't think there is any realistic harm from letting such a book be published, and a larger harm of false negatives under a set of rules that would censor such books.

xbmcuser 11y ago
This was mostly a business call publishing this book could make the publishers loose customers or even authors so they chose not to publish it. The author brilliantly is taking it as a business opportunity to market as something that was banned. With the american public so divided over right and left it will get a lot of publicity. Persoanlly I am for more people doing self publishing and not using the big 5 as that makes books cheaper for me. At the same time the topics and stories are not just those that are acceptable to particular group or ideology.

chrismcb 11y ago

I was under the impression the publisher felt they would lose sales because of it. So yeah there is a huge distinction.