6 ms·

I agree with everybody that says that these books are dangerous and removing is probably a net positive in the short term. However, I worry in the long term th

I agree with everybody that says that these books are dangerous and removing is probably a net positive in the short term. However, I worry in the long term that we are normalizing censorship of ideas. It is not just simply a case of book stores not having enough shelf space so they had to make editorial choices. Amazon, for all practical purposes has no limits on the number of books it can stock. In addition, successfully getting Amazon to do this will embolden people to pressure other book sellers as well. In addition, there is no appeal to obscenity or legal fraud as the reason. The book is being banned simply because we do not like the ideas it promotes.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I think we are on a very dangerous path if we are giving private institutions vast censorship power they have through their dominant market position. Where will the censorship stop? And if this gets more acceptable they will censor mainly for their own purposes and not for the general good.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Where will the censorship stop? Believe it or not, not everything is a slippery slope to a boot stomping on a human face forever.
- ibm5100 8y ago
  Not just run of the mill private institutions either, a company that has a monopoly on the distribution of books. This Atlantic article has their market share of all book sales at 65% in 2014. I wonder if that number has risen since then. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/amazon-has-basically-no-competition-among-online-booksellers/371917/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/amazon-...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Not really. Order it from a local bookshop, direct from publisher or author. It's still a million miles from the old days when book shops, even the largest could only carry a tiny fraction of what was available. Even then there were fringe shops that sold plenty of conspiracy and alternative views that main publishers, wholesalers and retailers wouldn't touch.
  - ibm5100 8y ago
    And when activists launch a boycott on said publisher, small bookstore or author, using the fact that the book is not sold on Amazon as precedent that there is something wrong with the content?
AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
I'd say there's a fine line between "free speech" and "dangerous medical advice". Looking at a paragraph from the article: >“Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” recommends that autistic children drink and bathe in chlorine dioxide, a compound often referred to as “Miracle Mineral Solution.” In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration described it as “a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment” that “can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.” That's dangerous, plain and simple. I have no problem with a merchant on Amazon that sells rat droppings in a jar, provided they make it very clear what they're selling: rat droppings in a jar. If they start claiming that consuming rat droppings will cure lymphoma, however, then we've got a problem.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I would much prefer if amazon was neutral middleman and the question whether something should be censored or not is decided by law.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Fraudulently selling rat droppings as a cure is very different from selling a book claiming rat droppings are a cure. Governments deciding what is correct science and what is heresy have a poor track record.
  - smhenderson 8y ago
    The government hasn't decided anything. Amazon is a private business not a government. Regardless of which side of the debate we fall on here I think it's important to keep that distinction in mind.
- orblivion 8y ago
  What if Amazon puts a notice "This book contains advice deemed to be extremely dangerous by the American Medical Association"?
jerf 8y ago
"However, I worry in the long term that we are normalizing censorship of ideas" You can stop worrying. Silicon Valley/FAANG has simply come out on the "censorship" side, strongly and unambiguously. It's not "long term", it's here, now. Always they have reasons. Sometimes even good reasons. But the censorship debate has never been about whether or not someone thinks they have good reasons to censor something. That's always been just taken as a given, because it's so obviously true.
WalterBright 8y ago
I really don't like the idea that media distribution companies like Amazon are expected to promote some ideas and censor others. All the books have a review/synopsis on their page selected by Amazon. They can simply put a review there that the book is pseudoscience. https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/William-Tyndale-Burned-for-Translating-the-Bible-into-English https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/William-Tyndale-Bu...
- wetpaws 8y ago
  You don't promote pseudoscience books for the same reason you don't promote TB, Ebola and leprosy.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    It's a book, not vial of disease.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I think we are on a very dangerous path if we are giving private institutions vast censorship power they have through their dominant market position. Where will the censorship stop? And if this gets more acceptable they will censor mainly for their own purposes and not for the general good.

krapp 8y ago
>Where will the censorship stop? Believe it or not, not everything is a slippery slope to a boot stomping on a human face forever.
ibm5100 8y ago
Not just run of the mill private institutions either, a company that has a monopoly on the distribution of books. This Atlantic article has their market share of all book sales at 65% in 2014. I wonder if that number has risen since then. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/amazon-has-basically-no-competition-among-online-booksellers/371917/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/amazon-...
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Not really. Order it from a local bookshop, direct from publisher or author. It's still a million miles from the old days when book shops, even the largest could only carry a tiny fraction of what was available. Even then there were fringe shops that sold plenty of conspiracy and alternative views that main publishers, wholesalers and retailers wouldn't touch.
- ibm5100 8y ago
  And when activists launch a boycott on said publisher, small bookstore or author, using the fact that the book is not sold on Amazon as precedent that there is something wrong with the content?

AdmiralAsshat 8y ago

I'd say there's a fine line between "free speech" and "dangerous medical advice". Looking at a paragraph from the article: >“Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” recommends that autistic children drink and bathe in chlorine dioxide, a compound often referred to as “Miracle Mineral Solution.” In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration described it as “a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment” that “can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.” That's dangerous, plain and simple. I have no problem with a merchant on Amazon that sells rat droppings in a jar, provided they make it very clear what they're selling: rat droppings in a jar. If they start claiming that consuming rat droppings will cure lymphoma, however, then we've got a problem.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I would much prefer if amazon was neutral middleman and the question whether something should be censored or not is decided by law.
WalterBright 8y ago
Fraudulently selling rat droppings as a cure is very different from selling a book claiming rat droppings are a cure. Governments deciding what is correct science and what is heresy have a poor track record.
- smhenderson 8y ago
  The government hasn't decided anything. Amazon is a private business not a government. Regardless of which side of the debate we fall on here I think it's important to keep that distinction in mind.
orblivion 8y ago
What if Amazon puts a notice "This book contains advice deemed to be extremely dangerous by the American Medical Association"?

jerf 8y ago

"However, I worry in the long term that we are normalizing censorship of ideas" You can stop worrying. Silicon Valley/FAANG has simply come out on the "censorship" side, strongly and unambiguously. It's not "long term", it's here, now. Always they have reasons. Sometimes even good reasons. But the censorship debate has never been about whether or not someone thinks they have good reasons to censor something. That's always been just taken as a given, because it's so obviously true.

WalterBright 8y ago

I really don't like the idea that media distribution companies like Amazon are expected to promote some ideas and censor others. All the books have a review/synopsis on their page selected by Amazon. They can simply put a review there that the book is pseudoscience. https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/William-Tyndale-Burned-for-Translating-the-Bible-into-English https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/William-Tyndale-Bu...

wetpaws 8y ago
You don't promote pseudoscience books for the same reason you don't promote TB, Ebola and leprosy.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  It's a book, not vial of disease.