4 ms·

There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's exp

by erbo 11y ago

There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's experienced it firsthand. It's not a direct conspiracy, to be sure, but it's a de facto conspiracy because the publishing executives are all part of the same culture and have the same views. What you're engaging in is part of the second way Correia predicted that Cole would be attacked and dismissed, namely, by quibbling over the exact definitions of "censorship" and "banned." Oh, and we have Cole's own words about why the publisher rejected the book. The publisher yanked the book of the schedule, without even asking first if Cole would revise the point that they found unacceptable.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's experienced it firsthand. There is not a conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of the political views at issue, which I know about and mention in this post because those views are in fact published in works that are available through major commercial channels. There may be a group of major publishers with biases which result in them not publishing the views that Correia and Cole complain about being "banned", but it is not only not a "ban", but its not a conspiring (or even independently acting in the same interest -- which seems to be what you mean with the "de facto conspiracy" description) oligopoly with the power to prevent the views from being widely published and the works embodying the views from being readily available through major outlets. As is evidenced by the fact that the views are widely published, and the works containing them are readily available through major outlets. Including, emphatically, the work of Cole's that this thread concerns. > What you're engaging in is part of the second way Correia predicted that Cole would be attacked and dismissed, namely, by quibbling over the exact definitions of "censorship" and "banned." I absolutely agree that this is censorship. The right to censor works one publishes is central the right of freedom of the press. No quibbling there. But when it comes to "ban", yes, I certainly disagree that with any description that this is a ban -- not only by a strict definition, but even by a loose analogy. I certainly agree that were there an alignment (conspiratorial or not) of publishers collectively wielding enough power over the market that could and did prevent certain political views from receiving wide circulation, that would be a lot like a ban. And, I'm open to the idea that, for some views, such an alignment does exist. But what happened to Cole is not evidence of anything that is even remotely similar to a ban. Because the book is being published, in a manner which makes it available through the single most significant outlet for retailing books, one which has a majority of the market for books. > Oh, and we have Cole's own words about why the publisher rejected the book. Cole is, obviously, not a neutral source of information on the matter.

by erbo 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> There is a de facto conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of certain political views, which Correia knows about and mentioned in his post because he's experienced it firsthand. There is not a conspiring oligopoly preventing publication of the political views at issue, which I know about and mention in this post because those views are in fact published in works that are available through major commercial channels. There may be a group of major publishers with biases which result in them not publishing the views that Correia and Cole complain about being "banned", but it is not only not a "ban", but its not a conspiring (or even independently acting in the same interest -- which seems to be what you mean with the "de facto conspiracy" description) oligopoly with the power to prevent the views from being widely published and the works embodying the views from being readily available through major outlets. As is evidenced by the fact that the views are widely published, and the works containing them are readily available through major outlets. Including, emphatically, the work of Cole's that this thread concerns. > What you're engaging in is part of the second way Correia predicted that Cole would be attacked and dismissed, namely, by quibbling over the exact definitions of "censorship" and "banned." I absolutely agree that this is censorship. The right to censor works one publishes is central the right of freedom of the press. No quibbling there. But when it comes to "ban", yes, I certainly disagree that with any description that this is a ban -- not only by a strict definition, but even by a loose analogy. I certainly agree that were there an alignment (conspiratorial or not) of publishers collectively wielding enough power over the market that could and did prevent certain political views from receiving wide circulation, that would be a lot like a ban. And, I'm open to the idea that, for some views, such an alignment does exist. But what happened to Cole is not evidence of anything that is even remotely similar to a ban. Because the book is being published, in a manner which makes it available through the single most significant outlet for retailing books, one which has a majority of the market for books. > Oh, and we have Cole's own words about why the publisher rejected the book. Cole is, obviously, not a neutral source of information on the matter.