4 ms·

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

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.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Maybe I need to drink more coffee, or I shouldn't write things in the morning. It's immoral to me because they're censoring information based on the content that it contains. And it's not a one-time incident, it's starting to become a pattern. At their size, I think that it's important that they are neutral to the content of the information. The company's motivations for packet discrimination may be different, but my reason for being against it is the same: I don't think content should be discriminated against.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  That's okay, I understand that part of your point and completely agree with it. I'm just arguing against the claim that what they do is censorship.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    I think what this really boils down to is that we have slightly different views about what the word means, and at what point private individuals become powerful enough for these kinds of things to matter. My (theoretical) mom's corner bookstore can't effectively be a censor. Yeah, it sucks if she doesn't carry a book, and it's still a bad thing that she's doing, but Amazon, doing the same act but at scale, is a totally different story. There's context that makes this important. Littering is a bummer. Oil spills are a disaster. Also, this isn't time #1 where Amazon has come out and done something like this. It's starting to become a growing pattern that I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with.
drinian 16y ago
That's not the best comparison if we're talking about digital books, which take up nothing but a tiny amount of hard-disk space to "stock." I seem to remember that Amazon was named after the river with the most volume in the world, a pun on their universal selection of books. Why change that now?
Bud 16y ago
Let's say you own a company that has driven most of the book industry out of business, and you suddenly decide to let Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch decide what books are ok for you to sell, and what books aren't. You honestly think for a millisecond that there isn't a major free speech issue brewing here? Think again. Borders is about to collapse and even more bookstore deaths are imminent. Amazon already controls a huge chunk of book sales; soon, it could be 50% or more of the industry.

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.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Maybe I need to drink more coffee, or I shouldn't write things in the morning. It's immoral to me because they're censoring information based on the content that it contains. And it's not a one-time incident, it's starting to become a pattern. At their size, I think that it's important that they are neutral to the content of the information. The company's motivations for packet discrimination may be different, but my reason for being against it is the same: I don't think content should be discriminated against.
CodeMage 16y ago
That's okay, I understand that part of your point and completely agree with it. I'm just arguing against the claim that what they do is censorship.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I think what this really boils down to is that we have slightly different views about what the word means, and at what point private individuals become powerful enough for these kinds of things to matter. My (theoretical) mom's corner bookstore can't effectively be a censor. Yeah, it sucks if she doesn't carry a book, and it's still a bad thing that she's doing, but Amazon, doing the same act but at scale, is a totally different story. There's context that makes this important. Littering is a bummer. Oil spills are a disaster. Also, this isn't time #1 where Amazon has come out and done something like this. It's starting to become a growing pattern that I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with.

drinian 16y ago

That's not the best comparison if we're talking about digital books, which take up nothing but a tiny amount of hard-disk space to "stock." I seem to remember that Amazon was named after the river with the most volume in the world, a pun on their universal selection of books. Why change that now?

Bud 16y ago

Let's say you own a company that has driven most of the book industry out of business, and you suddenly decide to let Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch decide what books are ok for you to sell, and what books aren't. You honestly think for a millisecond that there isn't a major free speech issue brewing here? Think again. Borders is about to collapse and even more bookstore deaths are imminent. Amazon already controls a huge chunk of book sales; soon, it could be 50% or more of the industry.