5 ms·

Private, yes. Government, no. Amazon is courageously admitting that ignorance is still ignorance and that they have the right not to comply with ignorance. Dan

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.
- rubyn00bie 8y ago
  You’re making a false equivalency. Freud’s books were once considered science and are, at a minimum, of historical value. These are not scientific. They are not necessary for historical purposes or archiving. They are purely malicious words made to ruin people’s lives for profit...
  - easytiger 8y ago
    OK. So now amazon decide to ban something you agree with? What then?
    - daenz 8y ago
      Then it will become "the government should make laws to stop private businesses from doing that," like it always does. People who defend censorship with the private business argument are often arguing in bad faith, because they don't really support the rights of private businesses, they're just using that angle to convince those that do.
jerf 8y ago
Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books constituted "ignorance"? (Think carefully. Most people will "want" to answer the seemingly-closely-related question "Why do you think these books are 'ignorance'?", but that is not the same question!)
- mannykannot 8y ago
  On the subject of thinking carefully... are you being forced to accept Amazon's assessment?
  - jerf 8y ago
    I personally am not and do not at the moment [1], but one of the reasons I'm strongly in favor of a whole lotta anti-trust action is that such decisions have out-sized marketing impact in the current environment. I also observe that the censorship frontier is moving quickly and taking a lot of ground in the past couple of years, and while I may not be forced to accept it today, the trend is heading strongly in a direction of yes, outright forcing me to accept a very Amazon-like decision about what should and should not be censored. It's strong enough that I feel it's acceptable for me to not just ignore these facts. [1]: I mean this globally about Amazon's gestalt opinion, not this specific case. One of my kids is diagnosed autistic and the other has the doctor's scratching their heads and kinda headed in that direction, and my wife and I have both looked at the "autism community", and steered hard away from it. There's all sorts of things wrong in there, at least on the loudest side of it. While I have no specific knowledge of the books in question, my priors have no problem accepting the idea that they are full of stupid and dangerous advice.
- sombremesa 8y ago
  Sure, you shouldn't, but everyone does - just like they trust Facebook, Google, et al. The only difference in this instance is they're telling you how they influenced your experience. Mostly they just do it quietly. :)
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  > Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books constituted "ignorance"? Why do you have to trust Amazon's assessment? You don't have to trust my assessment of anything, either. Nor I yours. So why are you debating whether or not you should trust Amazon's? I don't agree with plenty of things corporations do. I'm confused on what point you're trying to make? edit: This is a question if it's not clear. Please answer.
da_chicken 8y ago
I would say: Private, yes, until it has been shown to harm the public good to do so. Government, no, until it has been shown to harm the public good to not do so.
mirimir 8y ago
Sure, but just what is "anti-science"? What Amazon said: > Mr. Huseman also said in the letter that Amazon had conducted a review of anti-vaccination books and “found categorizations that were not consistent with our customers’ expectations.” The company, he said, was “actively working to resolve this.” That is, Amazon doesn't want to piss off its customers. So basically they are in fact "indulging populist fervor and the 'wisdom of crowds'". Edit: Here, Amazon is arguably pulling hazardous books. But I'm reminded how the tobacco industry accused its critics of promoting "junk science" and being "anti-science". As did many firms that were polluting the environment. And those who deny anthropogenic global climate change.
spaginal 8y ago
Define anti-science literature. As we steamroll at full speed into the Brave New World, does any book, piece of art, or piece of literature that goes against current popular thought become "anti-science literature" and thus promoted for removal. Plenty of people could make an argument that implementing communism is just good rational and logical policy and thinking, and anyone not wishing to do so is illogical, irrational, and anti-science, therefore we simply remove any literature relating to human freedom, free markets, or the constitution. Does that solve the problem? How about books on biology that clearly make a distinction between male and female genders. When the political transgender movement becomes locked in, do we simply ban all books that expose two genders as "anti-science literature"?
- krapp 8y ago
  > Define anti-science literature. Anti (preposition): opposed to, or against. Science (noun): the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Literature (noun): books and writings published on a particular subject. >As we steamroll at full speed into the Brave New World, does any book, piece of art, or piece of literature that goes against current popular thought become "anti-science literature" and thus promoted for removal. No. It is not true that any book, piece of art or literature can or will be deemed "anti-science literature". It is also not true that Amazon's ability to curate its own platform - an ability it has always had, and has always shared with every private enterprise, and has, with all other platforms, exercised before, represents a dangerous precedent towards the wholesale societal censorship of everything that "goes against current thought." Further, it is not the case that the books in question merely represent "wrongthink," making their removal an example of such. And also, we are not steamrolling into the Brave New World. Bringing up Brave New World, 1984 or Martin Niemoller's poem in on the internet should be considered signs of pseudointellectual poserdom. >Plenty of people could make an argument that implementing communism is just good rational (...) no. We live in a society. Society is run by human beings capable of perceiving nuance and applying rationality and discretion to their decisions. The fact that an equivalence can be made, does not mean that all equivalences must be made. Amazon choosing to remove these books from their platform does not lead to the slippery slope of removing all literature related to human freedom, free markets and the constitution. >How about books on biology that clearly make a distinction between male and female genders. (...) Again: no.

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.
rubyn00bie 8y ago
You’re making a false equivalency. Freud’s books were once considered science and are, at a minimum, of historical value. These are not scientific. They are not necessary for historical purposes or archiving. They are purely malicious words made to ruin people’s lives for profit...
- easytiger 8y ago
  OK. So now amazon decide to ban something you agree with? What then?
  - daenz 8y ago
    Then it will become "the government should make laws to stop private businesses from doing that," like it always does. People who defend censorship with the private business argument are often arguing in bad faith, because they don't really support the rights of private businesses, they're just using that angle to convince those that do.

jerf 8y ago

Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books constituted "ignorance"? (Think carefully. Most people will "want" to answer the seemingly-closely-related question "Why do you think these books are 'ignorance'?", but that is not the same question!)

mannykannot 8y ago
On the subject of thinking carefully... are you being forced to accept Amazon's assessment?
- jerf 8y ago
  I personally am not and do not at the moment [1], but one of the reasons I'm strongly in favor of a whole lotta anti-trust action is that such decisions have out-sized marketing impact in the current environment. I also observe that the censorship frontier is moving quickly and taking a lot of ground in the past couple of years, and while I may not be forced to accept it today, the trend is heading strongly in a direction of yes, outright forcing me to accept a very Amazon-like decision about what should and should not be censored. It's strong enough that I feel it's acceptable for me to not just ignore these facts. [1]: I mean this globally about Amazon's gestalt opinion, not this specific case. One of my kids is diagnosed autistic and the other has the doctor's scratching their heads and kinda headed in that direction, and my wife and I have both looked at the "autism community", and steered hard away from it. There's all sorts of things wrong in there, at least on the loudest side of it. While I have no specific knowledge of the books in question, my priors have no problem accepting the idea that they are full of stupid and dangerous advice.
sombremesa 8y ago
Sure, you shouldn't, but everyone does - just like they trust Facebook, Google, et al. The only difference in this instance is they're telling you how they influenced your experience. Mostly they just do it quietly. :)
asdkhadsj 8y ago
> Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books constituted "ignorance"? Why do you have to trust Amazon's assessment? You don't have to trust my assessment of anything, either. Nor I yours. So why are you debating whether or not you should trust Amazon's? I don't agree with plenty of things corporations do. I'm confused on what point you're trying to make? edit: This is a question if it's not clear. Please answer.

da_chicken 8y ago

I would say: Private, yes, until it has been shown to harm the public good to do so. Government, no, until it has been shown to harm the public good to not do so.

mirimir 8y ago

Sure, but just what is "anti-science"? What Amazon said: > Mr. Huseman also said in the letter that Amazon had conducted a review of anti-vaccination books and “found categorizations that were not consistent with our customers’ expectations.” The company, he said, was “actively working to resolve this.” That is, Amazon doesn't want to piss off its customers. So basically they are in fact "indulging populist fervor and the 'wisdom of crowds'". Edit: Here, Amazon is arguably pulling hazardous books. But I'm reminded how the tobacco industry accused its critics of promoting "junk science" and being "anti-science". As did many firms that were polluting the environment. And those who deny anthropogenic global climate change.

spaginal 8y ago

Define anti-science literature. As we steamroll at full speed into the Brave New World, does any book, piece of art, or piece of literature that goes against current popular thought become "anti-science literature" and thus promoted for removal. Plenty of people could make an argument that implementing communism is just good rational and logical policy and thinking, and anyone not wishing to do so is illogical, irrational, and anti-science, therefore we simply remove any literature relating to human freedom, free markets, or the constitution. Does that solve the problem? How about books on biology that clearly make a distinction between male and female genders. When the political transgender movement becomes locked in, do we simply ban all books that expose two genders as "anti-science literature"?

krapp 8y ago
> Define anti-science literature. Anti (preposition): opposed to, or against. Science (noun): the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Literature (noun): books and writings published on a particular subject. >As we steamroll at full speed into the Brave New World, does any book, piece of art, or piece of literature that goes against current popular thought become "anti-science literature" and thus promoted for removal. No. It is not true that any book, piece of art or literature can or will be deemed "anti-science literature". It is also not true that Amazon's ability to curate its own platform - an ability it has always had, and has always shared with every private enterprise, and has, with all other platforms, exercised before, represents a dangerous precedent towards the wholesale societal censorship of everything that "goes against current thought." Further, it is not the case that the books in question merely represent "wrongthink," making their removal an example of such. And also, we are not steamrolling into the Brave New World. Bringing up Brave New World, 1984 or Martin Niemoller's poem in on the internet should be considered signs of pseudointellectual poserdom. >Plenty of people could make an argument that implementing communism is just good rational (...) no. We live in a society. Society is run by human beings capable of perceiving nuance and applying rationality and discretion to their decisions. The fact that an equivalence can be made, does not mean that all equivalences must be made. Amazon choosing to remove these books from their platform does not lead to the slippery slope of removing all literature related to human freedom, free markets and the constitution. >How about books on biology that clearly make a distinction between male and female genders. (...) Again: no.