3 ms·

There is a reason why I included the monopoly part. Amazon pretty much has the monopoly on next-day deliveries on goods in the US. People also dont usually buy

There is a reason why I included the monopoly part. Amazon pretty much has the monopoly on next-day deliveries on goods in the US. People also dont usually buy goods off of felons because they are felond. They pay for it because they want the good. These creators got paid for their opinions and views. Amazon is also well in their right to deny goods they deem harmful from beeing sold on their website

mc32 8y ago
Implicit in your answer is that Amazon would be wrong to deny its services to known felons. I agree with that. It's also not a monopoly nor "pretty much a monopoly". There is WalMart/Jet, Target, and many other outfits out there, online as well as physical alternatives. Yet, I think it would be wrong to deny their services to people based on how "good" they thought they were.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  would you agree that amazon is in their rights to deny sale of goods they deem harmfull? I argue that amazon banning firearms is fine. They dont want to support something they deem harmfull. Now if patreon deems these ideologies harmfull, why should they be required to support them? The difference is that the felon example judges the people selling/buying, whereas patreon judges the goods.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I think Amazon shod follow the law and only sell things which are legal. There are grey areas like "supplements". I imagine they would make a decision based on risk factors. That said, I think Amazon can decide whether or not to carry a whole category. Sears Catalogs used to sell guns. Congress passed laws and now sales would have to pass muster. But that's altogether different from selling or not selling a service to someone because you think they are "good" or "bad" or you agree or disagree with their point of view. To me, Patreon is providing financial services, so I think this judgement is not in their purview in the same way Amazon should not judge who is buying or selling on their platform/services. It's none of their business. Is their business legitimate. That's about it.

mc32 8y ago

Implicit in your answer is that Amazon would be wrong to deny its services to known felons. I agree with that. It's also not a monopoly nor "pretty much a monopoly". There is WalMart/Jet, Target, and many other outfits out there, online as well as physical alternatives. Yet, I think it would be wrong to deny their services to people based on how "good" they thought they were.

thecatspaw 8y ago
would you agree that amazon is in their rights to deny sale of goods they deem harmfull? I argue that amazon banning firearms is fine. They dont want to support something they deem harmfull. Now if patreon deems these ideologies harmfull, why should they be required to support them? The difference is that the felon example judges the people selling/buying, whereas patreon judges the goods.
- mc32 8y ago
  I think Amazon shod follow the law and only sell things which are legal. There are grey areas like "supplements". I imagine they would make a decision based on risk factors. That said, I think Amazon can decide whether or not to carry a whole category. Sears Catalogs used to sell guns. Congress passed laws and now sales would have to pass muster. But that's altogether different from selling or not selling a service to someone because you think they are "good" or "bad" or you agree or disagree with their point of view. To me, Patreon is providing financial services, so I think this judgement is not in their purview in the same way Amazon should not judge who is buying or selling on their platform/services. It's none of their business. Is their business legitimate. That's about it.