3 ms·

Nasty! To start with your #1, what I actually said (and meant) was: "I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did" And the rest of your list is jus

Nasty! To start with your #1, what I actually said (and meant) was: "I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did" And the rest of your list is just as bad. So if you need to mis-state what someone says to "prove" them wrong, then you don't really believe in what you believe in. Which is, btw, what? Are you boycotting Amazon? If so, what are you giving up?

andrewcooke 16y ago
Why "nasty"? Seems like a decent summary. Anyway, I just bought a bunch of books from abebooks.com rather than amazon.com. Save a pile of money :o) but (I assume) they will not be new and shiny :(
- babblefrog 16y ago
  abebooks is owned by amazon.
  - andrewcooke 16y ago
    Really?! Aw crap. Thanks.
jdp23 16y ago
What I believe is that free speech is important, and when companies wave a big red flag that they don't value it, there need to be some consequences. As for what i'm giving up ... on a personal level, I haven't shopped at Amazon for quite a while (because of one-click patent, privacy issues, and their support for DRM). I had been considering of publishing something on CreateSpace and now will have to find some other options. I give up convenience, time, and occasionally some money. Then again I get to support independent book stores and sometimes buy directly from publishers who value free speech and privacy, so for me it's a big win. Professionally, I'll use somebody else for future projects. Obviously, this'll give up the "one-stop shopping" for high quality services and some best-in-class options. On the other hand, at this point it seems extremely risky to me to host anything that involves potentially-controversial content on Amazon, so I don't really see a lot of options there. I do agree that when you're deeply tied into the Amazon environment it's not an overnight change to get out of it. Still, I don't see that as an argument for not taking any action.
- pyre 16y ago
  > On the other hand, at this point it seems extremely risky > to me to host anything that involves potentially-controversial > content on Amazon, so I don't really see a lot of options there. Everything that you host is potentially-controversial?
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Imagine that the Bradley Manning Support Network decided to use my previous startup Qworky ("meetings that don't suck") and that Lieberman or some other politician criticized us for it. What would Amazon do? For that matter, Qworky's first public usage, early this year, was with the Get FISA Right activist group about strategies to fight the PATRIOT Act. We all know what side Lieberman's on there ...
danilocampos 16y ago
"I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did" Maybe I'm having trouble parsing the double negative, but doesn't that mean what OP said it means? If not, what does it mean instead?
- kragen 16y ago
  It means he possibly would have done what they did, not probably.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    If so, that strikes me as difference without distinction. "I might have done the same thing" and "I'd probably have done the same thing", in practical conversation, end up being sliced at the difference between 49% probability and 51%, right?
    - kragen 16y ago
      I read it as about 1% in this case.
      - danilocampos 16y ago
        Well, that would be stated as "I probably would not," wouldn't it? You can say, at that point, with certitude, that most of the money is on not doing as Amazon did.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Fair enough. When I blog about it I'll just quote his language directly.
- davewiner 16y ago
  Neither you or I know what Amazon knows -- that's what I meant. Neither side is telling the whole story. That's what you would have gotten if you had bothered to ask instead of telling me what I meant.

andrewcooke 16y ago

Why "nasty"? Seems like a decent summary. Anyway, I just bought a bunch of books from abebooks.com rather than amazon.com. Save a pile of money :o) but (I assume) they will not be new and shiny :(

babblefrog 16y ago
abebooks is owned by amazon.
- andrewcooke 16y ago
  Really?! Aw crap. Thanks.

jdp23 16y ago

What I believe is that free speech is important, and when companies wave a big red flag that they don't value it, there need to be some consequences. As for what i'm giving up ... on a personal level, I haven't shopped at Amazon for quite a while (because of one-click patent, privacy issues, and their support for DRM). I had been considering of publishing something on CreateSpace and now will have to find some other options. I give up convenience, time, and occasionally some money. Then again I get to support independent book stores and sometimes buy directly from publishers who value free speech and privacy, so for me it's a big win. Professionally, I'll use somebody else for future projects. Obviously, this'll give up the "one-stop shopping" for high quality services and some best-in-class options. On the other hand, at this point it seems extremely risky to me to host anything that involves potentially-controversial content on Amazon, so I don't really see a lot of options there. I do agree that when you're deeply tied into the Amazon environment it's not an overnight change to get out of it. Still, I don't see that as an argument for not taking any action.

pyre 16y ago
> On the other hand, at this point it seems extremely risky > to me to host anything that involves potentially-controversial > content on Amazon, so I don't really see a lot of options there. Everything that you host is potentially-controversial?
- jdp23 16y ago
  Imagine that the Bradley Manning Support Network decided to use my previous startup Qworky ("meetings that don't suck") and that Lieberman or some other politician criticized us for it. What would Amazon do? For that matter, Qworky's first public usage, early this year, was with the Get FISA Right activist group about strategies to fight the PATRIOT Act. We all know what side Lieberman's on there ...

danilocampos 16y ago

"I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did" Maybe I'm having trouble parsing the double negative, but doesn't that mean what OP said it means? If not, what does it mean instead?

kragen 16y ago
It means he possibly would have done what they did, not probably.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  If so, that strikes me as difference without distinction. "I might have done the same thing" and "I'd probably have done the same thing", in practical conversation, end up being sliced at the difference between 49% probability and 51%, right?
  - kragen 16y ago
    I read it as about 1% in this case.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      Well, that would be stated as "I probably would not," wouldn't it? You can say, at that point, with certitude, that most of the money is on not doing as Amazon did.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Fair enough. When I blog about it I'll just quote his language directly.
davewiner 16y ago
Neither you or I know what Amazon knows -- that's what I meant. Neither side is telling the whole story. That's what you would have gotten if you had bothered to ask instead of telling me what I meant.