6 ms·

I think we've gone a little crazy with the censorship word. This guy can print his book somewhere else and distribute it. Amazon (a private company) has decid

I think we've gone a little crazy with the censorship word. This guy can print his book somewhere else and distribute it. Amazon (a private company) has decided they don't want these books on it's platform (for whatever reason). Now if the gov't said Amazon had to take these down, that's a problem. But that's not what happened.

citricsquid 16y ago
It seems the internet has gone crazy on entitlement recently.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It's not entitlement. Now, hear me out. If I'm going to spend money somewhere, I'd like to know that the company I'm spending it with is acting in a way that I find ethical. In fact, I'd like to hold them to a higher standard, since it's so much easier for companies to have moral failings than it is people. > Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. - Wikipedia Amazon is acting as a censor. Now, it's not illegal. But I do find it to be distasteful. So I'd rather not support them. This article is one of a few lately that lets me know that Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way, and so I shouldn't patronize them anymore. Finally, it's incredibly important to hold these companies to a higher standard as they grow larger, because they become more and more influential. Most of my local bookstores have closed, and while there are other places to buy books online, I don't have the same relationship with them as I once did with Amazon. Now I'm in the process of checking out alternatives, but still: Amazon has become synonymous with "buying a book on the Internet."
  - coderdude 16y ago
    Talk about being melodramatic.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      The control of dissemination of information is one of the most important things there is, full stop. I am not being melodramatic.
  - CodeMage 16y ago
    Let me put it this way: let's say I own a chain of shops selling stuff for gardening and you want me to carry a product that consists of your turd in a plastic bag. No matter how much you insist it has its place in my fertilizer section, I'm not obliged to pick it up and sell it.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      No, I'm saying that if your company does something that I don't like, I'm not going to shop there. Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book because they think the content is in poor taste. And I am totally allowed to patronize someone else.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - coderdude 16y ago
        You change your tune depending on who you reply to. In one statement they're censoring books and controlling the dissemination of information. Here you're saying Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book, and that all that means is you won't shop there.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        There's a difference between legality and morality. Amazon is permitted by the rule of law to do this. I consider it immoral. Discriminating books based on content is the same thing as discriminating packets based on content.
        coderdude 16y ago
        If it is simply immoral to you then why all these goings on about censorship and controlling the dissemination of information? By the way, your end piece about books and packets is incorrect. They are not alike at all and the motivations to "discriminate" against packets is very different from any motivation to discriminate against books. If anything, no one is charging you more to read the book with the title about rape than they are to let you read Charles Dickens.
  - bambax 16y ago
    > Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way I don't think Amazon is looking at the world in any specific way. Amazon listens to whoever shouts louder. Unfortunately, people who want to ban books (for whatever reason) are much more vocal and much better organized than people who would rather not ban any book.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      That's true. It's difficult not to anthropomorphize in these kinds of discussions. Regardless, that's why I'm trying to be vocal.
    - middlegeek 16y ago
      Amazon is not banning the book, they are a private business that chooses not to carry a product whose title seems to (even though the contents do not) advocate rape.
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    "is acting in a way that I find ethical." "But I do find it to be distasteful." "hold these companies to a higher standard" Quotes from your comment. Are you aware the title of the book is "How To Rape A Straight Guy"? I mean the book could be about bunnies and rainbows and cuddly kittens, but if I owned a business I am not sure I would want to sell a product that seemed to advocate an illegal, unethical and (universally deemed) immoral act, even if it did not and the title was just for shock value.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Yes, I am. I don't consider it wrong to discuss any particular topic. And, while I haven't read into this particular book, the author says that the title is simply a troll. More investigation would be needed from either side to determine if the book is any good or not, but I don't really care if it is or not. As the author points out, Amazon already caries a litany of materials that describe and depict other immoral acts in graphic detail, including rape.
nopal 16y ago
It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.
- middlegeek 16y ago
  "Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." It's not censorship.
  - nopal 16y ago
    I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
    - middlegeek 16y ago
      They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
      - nopal 16y ago
        I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
        middlegeek 16y ago
        "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.

citricsquid 16y ago

It seems the internet has gone crazy on entitlement recently.

steveklabnik 16y ago
It's not entitlement. Now, hear me out. If I'm going to spend money somewhere, I'd like to know that the company I'm spending it with is acting in a way that I find ethical. In fact, I'd like to hold them to a higher standard, since it's so much easier for companies to have moral failings than it is people. > Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. - Wikipedia Amazon is acting as a censor. Now, it's not illegal. But I do find it to be distasteful. So I'd rather not support them. This article is one of a few lately that lets me know that Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way, and so I shouldn't patronize them anymore. Finally, it's incredibly important to hold these companies to a higher standard as they grow larger, because they become more and more influential. Most of my local bookstores have closed, and while there are other places to buy books online, I don't have the same relationship with them as I once did with Amazon. Now I'm in the process of checking out alternatives, but still: Amazon has become synonymous with "buying a book on the Internet."
- coderdude 16y ago
  Talk about being melodramatic.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    The control of dissemination of information is one of the most important things there is, full stop. I am not being melodramatic.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  Let me put it this way: let's say I own a chain of shops selling stuff for gardening and you want me to carry a product that consists of your turd in a plastic bag. No matter how much you insist it has its place in my fertilizer section, I'm not obliged to pick it up and sell it.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    No, I'm saying that if your company does something that I don't like, I'm not going to shop there. Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book because they think the content is in poor taste. And I am totally allowed to patronize someone else.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - coderdude 16y ago
      You change your tune depending on who you reply to. In one statement they're censoring books and controlling the dissemination of information. Here you're saying Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book, and that all that means is you won't shop there.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        There's a difference between legality and morality. Amazon is permitted by the rule of law to do this. I consider it immoral. Discriminating books based on content is the same thing as discriminating packets based on content.
        coderdude 16y ago
        If it is simply immoral to you then why all these goings on about censorship and controlling the dissemination of information? By the way, your end piece about books and packets is incorrect. They are not alike at all and the motivations to "discriminate" against packets is very different from any motivation to discriminate against books. If anything, no one is charging you more to read the book with the title about rape than they are to let you read Charles Dickens.
- bambax 16y ago
  > Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way I don't think Amazon is looking at the world in any specific way. Amazon listens to whoever shouts louder. Unfortunately, people who want to ban books (for whatever reason) are much more vocal and much better organized than people who would rather not ban any book.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    That's true. It's difficult not to anthropomorphize in these kinds of discussions. Regardless, that's why I'm trying to be vocal.
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    Amazon is not banning the book, they are a private business that chooses not to carry a product whose title seems to (even though the contents do not) advocate rape.
- middlegeek 16y ago
  "is acting in a way that I find ethical." "But I do find it to be distasteful." "hold these companies to a higher standard" Quotes from your comment. Are you aware the title of the book is "How To Rape A Straight Guy"? I mean the book could be about bunnies and rainbows and cuddly kittens, but if I owned a business I am not sure I would want to sell a product that seemed to advocate an illegal, unethical and (universally deemed) immoral act, even if it did not and the title was just for shock value.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Yes, I am. I don't consider it wrong to discuss any particular topic. And, while I haven't read into this particular book, the author says that the title is simply a troll. More investigation would be needed from either side to determine if the book is any good or not, but I don't really care if it is or not. As the author points out, Amazon already caries a litany of materials that describe and depict other immoral acts in graphic detail, including rape.

nopal 16y ago

It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.

middlegeek 16y ago
"Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." It's not censorship.
- nopal 16y ago
  I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
    - nopal 16y ago
      I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
      - middlegeek 16y ago
        "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.