4 ms·

Amazon and other platforms allowing payments to far-right groups

8 points by vanusa 7y ago

Dahoon 7y ago
Nazi books... >"An Amazon spokesperson said in an email: “As a bookseller, we believe that providing access to the written word is important. That includes books that some may find objectionable, though we have policies governing which books can be listed for sale."
- syntheticcorp 7y ago
  Mein Kampf is also currently for sale on Amazon. I worry when groups like SPLC consider themselves the final arbiter on what is a “hate group”, as you get quotes like “There is absolutely no excuse for a company to service, and make money from, any group identified by SPLC as a hate group,” .
dmitrygr 7y ago
Would you rather they act as judge and jury about whom to allow payments to and whom not to? Before you answer, remember that somewhere there is someone who finds YOU objectionable!
- trianglem 7y ago
  Yes and they are fully within their rights to do so as a private company.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    True. I am just making the point that them choosing to be impartial is much better than the alternative
  - 383uhdjdjd 7y ago
    I see this rebuttal all the time on HN and I'm not clear on if people realize it's a weak rebuttal or if they just don't care. So what if they're within their rights? Does that remove the public's ability to object or invalidate their criticisms? We'be lived long enough to see the role of social media in the arab spring, the #metoo movent, and #blacklivesmatter. It's no longer a defense for companies, especially the Megacorps, to be legally within their rights. If people feel like private corporations are undermining the spirit of freedom of speech principles then they should be encouraged to organize and voice their feelings in the same way that we encourage any other group to. If the internet were invented fifty years earlier would it have been ethically acceptable if them to censor civil rights activists for associating with a movement which was frequently accused of inciting violence and causing maybe? Would it have been ethically defensible when they silenced the LGBT movement for advocating against'family values'? I constantly see criticism of companies who cooperate with the intelligence community here, even though that too is something within their rights by definition, and yet when the the freedom of expression crowd comes around they get tested like they also must be secret racists and bigots because for some reason no other explanation makes acceptable sense.
    - trianglem 7y ago
      I don’t care. I trust a corporation to make the right decisions when it comes to hate speech (currently) over the general public consensus because they are driven by profit over bigotry. Even if they don’t make the right decisions, I still trust them over the general public.

8 points by vanusa 7y ago

Nazi books... >"An Amazon spokesperson said in an email: “As a bookseller, we believe that providing access to the written word is important. That includes books that some may find objectionable, though we have policies governing which books can be listed for sale."

syntheticcorp 7y ago
Mein Kampf is also currently for sale on Amazon. I worry when groups like SPLC consider themselves the final arbiter on what is a “hate group”, as you get quotes like “There is absolutely no excuse for a company to service, and make money from, any group identified by SPLC as a hate group,” .

dmitrygr 7y ago

Would you rather they act as judge and jury about whom to allow payments to and whom not to? Before you answer, remember that somewhere there is someone who finds YOU objectionable!

trianglem 7y ago
Yes and they are fully within their rights to do so as a private company.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  True. I am just making the point that them choosing to be impartial is much better than the alternative
- 383uhdjdjd 7y ago
  I see this rebuttal all the time on HN and I'm not clear on if people realize it's a weak rebuttal or if they just don't care. So what if they're within their rights? Does that remove the public's ability to object or invalidate their criticisms? We'be lived long enough to see the role of social media in the arab spring, the #metoo movent, and #blacklivesmatter. It's no longer a defense for companies, especially the Megacorps, to be legally within their rights. If people feel like private corporations are undermining the spirit of freedom of speech principles then they should be encouraged to organize and voice their feelings in the same way that we encourage any other group to. If the internet were invented fifty years earlier would it have been ethically acceptable if them to censor civil rights activists for associating with a movement which was frequently accused of inciting violence and causing maybe? Would it have been ethically defensible when they silenced the LGBT movement for advocating against'family values'? I constantly see criticism of companies who cooperate with the intelligence community here, even though that too is something within their rights by definition, and yet when the the freedom of expression crowd comes around they get tested like they also must be secret racists and bigots because for some reason no other explanation makes acceptable sense.
  - trianglem 7y ago
    I don’t care. I trust a corporation to make the right decisions when it comes to hate speech (currently) over the general public consensus because they are driven by profit over bigotry. Even if they don’t make the right decisions, I still trust them over the general public.