3 ms·
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 sayin
by 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 agoThere'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 agoIf 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 agoMaybe 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.