5 ms·

I don't know whether I agree. The world is full of shitty materials and content. Should Amazon, or other intermediaries, be allowed such interferences? Has an

I don't know whether I agree. The world is full of shitty materials and content. Should Amazon, or other intermediaries, be allowed such interferences? Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold?

onewhonknocks 8y ago
Shouldn't a merchant be able to decide for themselves which products they want to carry or not carry on their shelves (both physical and digital)? Is the alternative that a merchant should be forced to carry a product against their will?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  In theory yes but if a private institution has a lot of market power like amazon has they can effectively shape the public discourse with their censorship. Which indicates to me that big operations are dangerous for democracy.
  - tanilama 8y ago
    Then maybe we should cancel big television or news networks. Nowadays, every one of them are not even pretending they are unbiased, how is that better than take down 2 books selling pseudo science? And do we need a democratic process to decide whether certain treatment is acceptable? That smells suspiciously close to the anti-vaxxer argument.
  - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    Amazon doesn't sell Nazi flags. Is that censorship, and does that keep such flags from public discourse?
- educationdata 8y ago
  You are making a straw-man argument. Nobody here is claiming Amazon should be forced to sell a Book. The concern is whether it is a right thing for Amazon to do, not whether Amazon has the Right to do it.
  - clucas 8y ago
    Here is what the grandparent comment said: > Should Amazon, or other intermediaries, be allowed such interferences? It's not a strawman to read that, then ask: > Shouldn't a merchant be able to decide for themselves which products they want to carry or not carry on their shelves (both physical and digital)? > Is the alternative that a merchant should be forced to carry a product against their will? edit: formatting
- mikeq101101 8y ago
  Of course they should be able to, but that's not what OP asked.
  - mikeq101101 8y ago
    Sorry, I misread OP. People treat "should do" and "should be able to do" frequently as the same thing in these cases (Twitter and "free speech" is another such case).
mc32 8y ago
Yeah, this is a bit hairy. On the one hand it's dubious information, on the other hand it goes against free speech and Amazon becomes arbiter of what is right and wrong, allowed and disallowed. I don't think this should be Amazon's job. In this case, one can make the case this is the right decision, but the same decision later on may result in the wrong decision. Should they go against conspiracy theorists? JFK, whatever.
lph 8y ago
Platforms can censor content however they like. Amazon isn’t a government entity and has no responsibility to provide a platform for free speech. Why would they?
ashleyn 8y ago
Private, yes. Government, no. Amazon is courageously admitting that ignorance is still ignorance and that they have the right not to comply with ignorance. Dangerous, anti-science literature was on the top of their own charts, and ignoring that has moral implications. Amazon has decided indulging populist fervor and the "wisdom of crowds" does not rank higher than protecting general welfare where they have an influence.
- asdffdsa 8y ago
  Should Freud's books be pulled too for being unscientific?
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Your question would be better directed to Amazon's buyers, as it's their store and they get to decide what they do and do not sell.
  - ashleyn 8y ago
    Freud's books aren't currently inflaming a public health crisis. That being said, if Amazon felt as such, they could do it for whatever reason they felt. Or not do it. The point is that if they're not a monopoly, private or public, the argument that populism supercedes their property rights is a very poor one.
    - asdffdsa 8y ago
      Freud's books when they came out were wildly inflammatory. I'm not really arguing against Amazon's right to not publish, I'm trying to figure out when it is acceptable for people to censor ideas so others will not discover them, and on what basis something should be deemed 'ignorant' given the complication that each individual is subject to the ignorance of their time.
      - toomanyrichies 8y ago
        > I’m trying to figure out when it is acceptable for people to censor ideas so others will not discover them Perhaps when not doing so would perpetuate the resurgence of a life-threatening disease that, until 20 years ago, was virtually eliminated in the US? > each individual is subject to the ignorance of their time. True. They are also subject to the responsibility to think rationally and use the provable, reproducible evidence at their disposal to make decisions. Especially when those decisions have life-or-death implications not only for their children, but others’ children as well.
tanilama 8y ago
I think it is allowed, it is private company anyway. This is not a free speech debate. Amazon can choose not to sell something and it is entirely their rights to not offer service to certain people, as a sellers' platform.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mannykannot 8y ago
> Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold? No, and it is beside the point. What you are asking for is that the government should order Amazon to sell snake oil.
threatofrain 8y ago
If we want to say that companies that have gotten to a size should be regulated like the government, then we should create clear cutoffs for when that is, because the short working memory of the public isn't sufficient to decide these matters. Otherwise, curation is something that I'd definitely pay for, something consumers definitely want.
imgabe 8y ago
Back in the days of physical bookstores, it was not possible to offer every available book for sale. Some person at Barnes and Noble or Your Local Bookshop, would have to review which books they would have in the store, and which they would not. They would use a variety of factors, mostly how likely they thought it was the book would sell, but certainly they were free to use their judgement in whatever other way they liked to determine which books they offered for sale. This curation was a part of the value the bookstore provided. Nobody ever demanded that they be forced to sell every single book in existence, or even that they explain why they did or didn't want to sell a particular book. Why should Amazon be any different? If Joe Crackpot wants to sell his book online, he can make a website with a shopping cart and offer it for sale himself. He has no standing to demand Amazon's assistance in selling it. Literally all intermediaries are making these decisions all the time. If I cook up some homemade ketchup in my bathtup, should I be able to force Giant to stock it on their shelves? Does Bloomingdale's have to stock their racks with whatever rags any aspiring fashionista sews together? Should Best Buy be forced to stock my homemade Fitbit that I soldered together in the garage? No, of course not. They have people whose entire job it is to wade through all the available products and find the best ones to sell. There's nothing wrong with that.
kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
Amazon sells surgery manuals: https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Manual-Surgery-Lippincott-ebook/dp/B017ACIHZU https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Manual-Surgery-Lippincott-... If they carried a surgery manual that told its readers that the proper procedure for a tonsillectomy involved removing the spleen, it would be wrong to sell it. Refusing to sell a book that tells its readers that autism can be cured by drinking camel milk or bathing in chlorine dioxide is not wrong, it is the correct and moral stance. If they sold a car repair manual that told its readers the proper way to fix a clogged fuel injector was to stuff bananas into the throttle body, I would expect that Amazon would refuse to sell it once it was brought to their attention. I don't understand the cries of "censorship!"
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  What's the measure of harm? They sell a ton of self-help books, ... if the advice isn't scientifically beneficial then do those books get dropped? Drinking camel milk is probably not harming people (unless they have an allergy/intolerance, but that's besides the point). Do people with investing systems have to prove they work? No, I don't want to see people harming themselves or their kids with bad advice.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    > Drinking camel milk is probably not harming people (unless they have an allergy/intolerance, but that's besides the point). Drinking camel milk with the presumption that it will cure cancer is comparatively harmful, given the end result as contrasted to actually being treated for cancer with medicine. > Do people with investing systems have to prove they work? The analogy in this case would be an investing system that provably does not work under even the most casual inspection, like "set your money on fire and bury the ashes and it will grow a money tree".
dontbenebby 8y ago
>Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold? You'd like judges to be able to force merchants to stock specific books?

onewhonknocks 8y ago

Shouldn't a merchant be able to decide for themselves which products they want to carry or not carry on their shelves (both physical and digital)? Is the alternative that a merchant should be forced to carry a product against their will?

maxxxxx 8y ago
In theory yes but if a private institution has a lot of market power like amazon has they can effectively shape the public discourse with their censorship. Which indicates to me that big operations are dangerous for democracy.
- tanilama 8y ago
  Then maybe we should cancel big television or news networks. Nowadays, every one of them are not even pretending they are unbiased, how is that better than take down 2 books selling pseudo science? And do we need a democratic process to decide whether certain treatment is acceptable? That smells suspiciously close to the anti-vaxxer argument.
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  Amazon doesn't sell Nazi flags. Is that censorship, and does that keep such flags from public discourse?
educationdata 8y ago
You are making a straw-man argument. Nobody here is claiming Amazon should be forced to sell a Book. The concern is whether it is a right thing for Amazon to do, not whether Amazon has the Right to do it.
- clucas 8y ago
  Here is what the grandparent comment said: > Should Amazon, or other intermediaries, be allowed such interferences? It's not a strawman to read that, then ask: > Shouldn't a merchant be able to decide for themselves which products they want to carry or not carry on their shelves (both physical and digital)? > Is the alternative that a merchant should be forced to carry a product against their will? edit: formatting
mikeq101101 8y ago
Of course they should be able to, but that's not what OP asked.
- mikeq101101 8y ago
  Sorry, I misread OP. People treat "should do" and "should be able to do" frequently as the same thing in these cases (Twitter and "free speech" is another such case).

mc32 8y ago

Yeah, this is a bit hairy. On the one hand it's dubious information, on the other hand it goes against free speech and Amazon becomes arbiter of what is right and wrong, allowed and disallowed. I don't think this should be Amazon's job. In this case, one can make the case this is the right decision, but the same decision later on may result in the wrong decision. Should they go against conspiracy theorists? JFK, whatever.

lph 8y ago

Platforms can censor content however they like. Amazon isn’t a government entity and has no responsibility to provide a platform for free speech. Why would they?

ashleyn 8y ago

Private, yes. Government, no. Amazon is courageously admitting that ignorance is still ignorance and that they have the right not to comply with ignorance. Dangerous, anti-science literature was on the top of their own charts, and ignoring that has moral implications. Amazon has decided indulging populist fervor and the "wisdom of crowds" does not rank higher than protecting general welfare where they have an influence.

asdffdsa 8y ago
Should Freud's books be pulled too for being unscientific?
- mikestew 8y ago
  Your question would be better directed to Amazon's buyers, as it's their store and they get to decide what they do and do not sell.
- ashleyn 8y ago
  Freud's books aren't currently inflaming a public health crisis. That being said, if Amazon felt as such, they could do it for whatever reason they felt. Or not do it. The point is that if they're not a monopoly, private or public, the argument that populism supercedes their property rights is a very poor one.
  - asdffdsa 8y ago
    Freud's books when they came out were wildly inflammatory. I'm not really arguing against Amazon's right to not publish, I'm trying to figure out when it is acceptable for people to censor ideas so others will not discover them, and on what basis something should be deemed 'ignorant' given the complication that each individual is subject to the ignorance of their time.
    - toomanyrichies 8y ago
      > I’m trying to figure out when it is acceptable for people to censor ideas so others will not discover them Perhaps when not doing so would perpetuate the resurgence of a life-threatening disease that, until 20 years ago, was virtually eliminated in the US? > each individual is subject to the ignorance of their time. True. They are also subject to the responsibility to think rationally and use the provable, reproducible evidence at their disposal to make decisions. Especially when those decisions have life-or-death implications not only for their children, but others’ children as well.

tanilama 8y ago

I think it is allowed, it is private company anyway. This is not a free speech debate. Amazon can choose not to sell something and it is entirely their rights to not offer service to certain people, as a sellers' platform.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mannykannot 8y ago

> Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold? No, and it is beside the point. What you are asking for is that the government should order Amazon to sell snake oil.

threatofrain 8y ago

If we want to say that companies that have gotten to a size should be regulated like the government, then we should create clear cutoffs for when that is, because the short working memory of the public isn't sufficient to decide these matters. Otherwise, curation is something that I'd definitely pay for, something consumers definitely want.

imgabe 8y ago

Back in the days of physical bookstores, it was not possible to offer every available book for sale. Some person at Barnes and Noble or Your Local Bookshop, would have to review which books they would have in the store, and which they would not. They would use a variety of factors, mostly how likely they thought it was the book would sell, but certainly they were free to use their judgement in whatever other way they liked to determine which books they offered for sale. This curation was a part of the value the bookstore provided. Nobody ever demanded that they be forced to sell every single book in existence, or even that they explain why they did or didn't want to sell a particular book. Why should Amazon be any different? If Joe Crackpot wants to sell his book online, he can make a website with a shopping cart and offer it for sale himself. He has no standing to demand Amazon's assistance in selling it. Literally all intermediaries are making these decisions all the time. If I cook up some homemade ketchup in my bathtup, should I be able to force Giant to stock it on their shelves? Does Bloomingdale's have to stock their racks with whatever rags any aspiring fashionista sews together? Should Best Buy be forced to stock my homemade Fitbit that I soldered together in the garage? No, of course not. They have people whose entire job it is to wade through all the available products and find the best ones to sell. There's nothing wrong with that.

kilo_bravo_3 8y ago

Amazon sells surgery manuals: https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Manual-Surgery-Lippincott-ebook/dp/B017ACIHZU https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Manual-Surgery-Lippincott-... If they carried a surgery manual that told its readers that the proper procedure for a tonsillectomy involved removing the spleen, it would be wrong to sell it. Refusing to sell a book that tells its readers that autism can be cured by drinking camel milk or bathing in chlorine dioxide is not wrong, it is the correct and moral stance. If they sold a car repair manual that told its readers the proper way to fix a clogged fuel injector was to stuff bananas into the throttle body, I would expect that Amazon would refuse to sell it once it was brought to their attention. I don't understand the cries of "censorship!"

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
What's the measure of harm? They sell a ton of self-help books, ... if the advice isn't scientifically beneficial then do those books get dropped? Drinking camel milk is probably not harming people (unless they have an allergy/intolerance, but that's besides the point). Do people with investing systems have to prove they work? No, I don't want to see people harming themselves or their kids with bad advice.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  > Drinking camel milk is probably not harming people (unless they have an allergy/intolerance, but that's besides the point). Drinking camel milk with the presumption that it will cure cancer is comparatively harmful, given the end result as contrasted to actually being treated for cancer with medicine. > Do people with investing systems have to prove they work? The analogy in this case would be an investing system that provably does not work under even the most casual inspection, like "set your money on fire and bury the ashes and it will grow a money tree".

dontbenebby 8y ago

>Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold? You'd like judges to be able to force merchants to stock specific books?