I think it is easy to get distracted about whether or not Amazon has "the right" to do this. The argument for private businesses making their own choices is st

I think it is easy to get distracted about whether or not Amazon has "the right" to do this. The argument for private businesses making their own choices is strong, the argument for them being an effective monopoly is strong, I'm sure many other arguments are strong. What occurs to me, and especially after listening to the second Joe Rogan/Jack Dorsey and co interview, is two dimensions of critically important inquiry: - What effect do policies and procedures like this have? How are they perceived? What are the unintended consequences? What are the limits and conditions surround the erection and enforcement of these policies? What is likely to be the next set of things removed? What are the forces that guide the decision making of the organization removing content? - What kind of world do we want to live in? Do these actions move us closer to that world, once all relevant and foreseeable consequences are taken in to account? What ability or mechanism exists to change course if the policy doesn't have the intended effect? Is there a way books can be reinstated? The reality, as I see it, is the policies surrounding content moderation have tremendous future impact potential for culture and human experience. We should make sure there is a broad and deep debate, not arbitrary action that takes its validity merely by existing. That's called "might makes right."