14 ms·
>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to secur
by 50656E6973 8y ago
>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Friendly reminder that the definition of censorship is not limited to the government.
The books they've banned may indeed be misinformation, but lets not push even more misinformation by denying simple dictionary definitions that seem politically unacceptable.
- imgabe 8y agoThen every website in the world censors information by filtering out spam. Why does nobody weep for the poor spammers who just want to sell you cheap Viagra? No doubt Amazon has been "censoring" their reviews in this way since the beginning. Where's the outrage?
- spaginal 8y agoRemoving books from a "book" marketplace, that do not break any laws, aren't lewd or pornographic, and simply present alternative information on a subject, is not on the same level as spam. Censorship is censorship. It doesn't need to be a political body to make it so. In the 80's, the idea of the corporate ran dystopian future where a megalomaniac controlled society through his mega corporation was seen as scary future. Now we get the usual boot licking going on every time this topic is brought up as Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google (Alphabet) actually put into practice real censorship and attempt to control the majority of online communication, ideas, and a good piece of all information over the internet. What a turn for the worse we've taken as a society.
- wlesieutre 8y ago> present alternative information Like shouting "fire" in a crowded auditorium that is in fact not on fire? Let's call it what it is: we're talking about lying about things that can and will literally kill people. Why should Amazon be expected to provide a platform for that?
- wowzap 8y agoYou can do that if you want, "fire in a movie theater" was an argument in an overturned Supreme Court ruling.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wlesieutre 8y agoYou can do that, but if you feel entitled to the theater's help in doing it then I don't know what to tell you. And if you expect the theater to let you in when you come back to watch a movie the next day, you're going to be disappointed.
- int_19h 8y agoIt's also worth reminding that it was a ruling which put a prominent politician in prison for campaigning against WW1 and encouraging people to resist the draft. Which is to say, it came preassembled with a slippery slope.
- spaginal 8y agoWhat literally kills people when they get an alternative opinion or simply information about vaccinations... which is the raison du jour, but the not the only information being blocked by these companies. What happens when the prevailing opinion in the future becomes that raising boys as boys is dangerous for their health? Girls as girls? Promoting religion to your children seen as dangerous to popular thought? Do we continue down this path and start banning literature on how to raise children properly, the bible? After all, it may disagree with YOUR OWN held opinion, so it must be removed, for the safety of the children, right? We are entering the territory of cheering on the thought police, where you disregard your own faculties and off load all of your exposure to information and decision making to a highly select group of people, with their own biases, much of it monetarily motivated. Do you understand what I'm saying to you?
- lancesells 8y ago
- imgabe 8y agoCry me a river. If the authors want to sell their books, they can open up their own website, set up a table at the local flea market, rent a store space and stock it with all the quackery they want. Amazon is not the only sales outlet in the world. Nobody is stopping them from selling anything. Amazon is not obligated to carry their merchandise any more than they would be obligated to carry any Amazon branded products in their own stores. If anything, whenever Amazon is mentioned here, people come in to complain that they need to do more to remove garbage products from their website. Here's a garbage product that literally kills people when they use it. If it were a toaster, it would be yanked from the shelves and the manufacturer would be getting sued for wrongful death.
- spaginal 8y agoI don't disagree in the slightest that they should explore all avenues for sale. Answer this question to satiate my curiosity, what if Stripe and Paypal refuse to process credit card payments for these authors? What if Square refuses to swipe cards at the flea market for the author?
- _trampeltier 8y agoIt does already happen. There are many cases like Fetlife etc ...
- imgabe 8y agoPaypal (and probably Stripe?) are notorious for freezing customer accounts with little to no explanation, so to answer you question to what if they did that...probably nothing? Paypal or Stripe or Square are not any more obligated to do business with a particular customer than anyone else is. They can always accept cash, checks, Bitcoin, barter.
- jpindar 8y agoPaypal already refuses to allow itself to be used for sales of various legal but controversial products.
- 8y ago
- jsight 8y ago> Now we get the usual boot licking going on every time this topic is brought up as Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google (Alphabet) [...] That's funny, because every time that I'm here lately I seem to see a pile of upvoted stories and comments about how [insert big company here] is committing [atrocity here]. Sometimes its true, but often its backed by little evidence other than someone's opinion. I'm not convinced that things are nearly so imbalanced as you are making them sound.
- anigbrowl 8y agoOf course they're not, that's why the poster is resorting to such hyperbolic language and emotional anchoring.
- driverdan 8y ago> aren't lewd or pornographic What's wrong with something that's lewd or pornographic? It's far better than quackery.
- imtringued 8y agoPayment processors will cut you off and it doesn't fit with their Family Friendly™️ image.
- meruru 8y agoIt's still taboo for a lot of people unfortunately.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kevinh 8y agoRemoving a book for breaking a law is censorship. Removing a book for being lewd or pornographic is censorship. What makes those instances of censorship acceptable, and removing books peddling harmful claims masquerading as science unacceptable?
- Mikhail_Edoshin 8y agoRemoving a book is censorship. Not carrying a broad category of books is a policy. E.g. if they didn't carry any book on autism, this would be a strange decision, but within their competence. Judging a single book is not.
- baddox 8y ago> Removing books from a "book" marketplace, that do not break any laws, aren't lewd or pornographic, and simply present alternative information on a subject, is not on the same level as spam. Huh? Why would you make an exception for pornography in your definition of censorship? Porn is like the most obvious textbook example of censorship.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 8y agoAt least this is a blanket category, not hand-picked example.
- banachtarski 8y agoWhy do you distinguish lewdness and pornography from fake science. Your metric for classifying various forms of content honestly just renders your argument rather hypocritical.
- js2 8y ago> What a turn for the worse we've taken as a society. Perhaps it's a game of whack-a-mole and censorship trying to suppress vaccine misinformation, but the anti-vax movement is an actual real danger to society, and misinformation was cited as one of the problems in recent testimony before Congress by a teen who defied his parents’ anti-vaccination beliefs: "The sources which spread misinformation should be the primary concern of the American people." [1] Fortunately this teen learned to think on his own ("learning to find credible research and information is fundamental to finding truth in a world of misleading facts and false views"). Ideally, I'd want everyone to learn to think critically, and to combat misinformation with information. I don't like the slippery slope of censorship either. But I also can't stand the fact that my children live in a world with kids who aren't vaccinated. So I hesitatingly applaud Amazon here. [1] https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lindenberger.pdf https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lindenberger.pdf
- wcarron 8y ago> Removing books from a "book" marketplace, that do not break any laws, aren't lewd or pornographic, and simply present alternative information on a subject, is not on the same level as spam. From the Article: 'Wired magazine noted that Amazon is crowded with titles promoting unproven treatments for autism that include “sex, yoga, camel milk, electroconvulsive therapy, and veganism.”' Removing books that contain outright lies isn't censorship. It's simple denying a platform for bald-faced liars to profit off misleading the public.
- crooked-v 8y agoClaims that forcing children to drink bleach will cure autism are far beyond "alternative information".
- tuesdayrain 8y agoI'm not seeing why censoring lewd material is fine, while censoring books that falsely claim to cure autism is wrong. They all seem like arbitrary places to draw the line.
- drngdds 8y ago>alternative information The phrase your looking for is "dangerous lies"
- a_tractor 8y ago>Why does nobody weep for the poor spammers who just want to sell you cheap Viagra How does ad bot spam fit the profile of: > books, films, news... that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security ???
- 50656E6973 8y agoBecause scale matters
- applesplatz 8y agothey're also pulling "political" books. Mostly alt-right types.
- baddox 8y agoThat is a very broad definition, of course. Am I engaging in censorship by selecting only a small handful of books to have in my home?
- educationdata 8y agoI think Amazon's action concerns people bc it's strong position in the book market. It's very different from your own private action. I'm not saying Amazon should be forced to sell the book.
- baddox 8y agoThat is precisely my point. The extremely broad definition cited above is far too broad to match people's actual usage of the word "censorship."
- rhizome 8y agoYes, by refusing to watch a certain TV show or listen to some band you think is good, that is a kind of censorship, but not one really significant enough to transcend the concept of taste.
- anigbrowl 8y agoFriendly reminder that the definition of censorship is not limited to the government. This isn't a reminder, it's an assertion that uses rhetoric to make itself sound more factual.
- 50656E6973 8y agoWhy do you think censorship can only be done by a government?
- killjoywashere 8y agoNo one lives a purely deontological or purely consequentialist life. At some point, senior members of a society are responsible, indeed accountable, for using their influence to impose standards for the good of that society. I operate a Little Free Library that is a net source of books (people in the neighborhood drop off boxes of books). This has had a number of effects I didn't foresee: 1) we have learned who visits seeking books (usually kids and their moms), a demographic I certainly want to encourage reading in, so we load the stock toward that demographic. 2) rarely we acquire some really great books. 3) Occasionally we get books that give me unintended insight about who's in my neighborhood, not in a good way. I throw them out. I have no problem with Mr. Bezos doing what amounts to the same. We're not talking about censorship of valid information. It's censorship of invalid information. That's just good methodology.
- roel_v 8y ago"I operate a Little Free Library that is a net source of books (people in the neighborhood drop off boxes of books)." Quite OT, but I've thought about doing this - how do you do this, practically speaking? Do you have a cupboard in the front of your house or do people actually come inside? Have you ever had to deal with vandalism? In what climate do you live, and what sort of infrastructure do you have?
- philistine 8y agoGo inside your house! Letting the neighbours in your house to grab books. You are the most generous, kindhearted person in the world if you really are thinking of doing it this way. It's a very big bird house on a pole in front of your house, just in front of the sidewalk. It's got a door with a window on it, so people can see the books. I live in a region with a cold climate and there are 7 or 8 exactly like what I'm describing in my neighbourhood. I don't personally have one but my wife wants to build one in the spring. Doesn't seem to be much of a vandalism magnet when they look so gosh-darn cute.
- roel_v 8y ago"Go inside your house! Letting the neighbours in your house to grab books." Well I was thinking more of a 'we're open Saturday mornings only' kind of deal, I can assure you I am far from the most generous, kindhearted person in the world :) "I live in a region with a cold climate and there are 7 or 8 exactly like what I'm describing in my neighbourhood." Does it work OK in rain and cold? It only gets to -10 C here so not even that cold, but it seems it would be hard to build the cute ones (like, all the results when Google Image searching 'little library') in a waterproof way. Then again, I'm probably overthinking it and getting stuck in analysis paralysis like I usually do...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- BubRoss 8y agoPeople not listening, a store choosing not to sell something, and a company choosing not to broadcast your information to their audience are all scenarios that are not censorship.