22 ms·

Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

209 points by StuntPope 6y ago

pen2l 6y ago
After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively moderating, just like how HN is moderated.
- jki275 6y ago
  This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a compilation of data that hasn't been widely reported.
  - pen2l 6y ago
    The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clinicians-who-oppose-junk-science-about-marijuana https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clin... -- a letter signed by over 100 scholars and researchers strongly condemning his previous book which says that marijuana is the culprit behind violence
    - np_tedious 6y ago
      That's an interesting article. I think I'd like to take a look first hand. Perhaps I'll buy some of his books so I can decide for myself. Where are they available?
      - jki275 6y ago
        And that's the rub.
    - itsoktocry 6y ago
      The arguments against his book in that post are not particularly damning. More like par-for-the-course for pop science. And it's not like academia is immune to this. Selection bias? Claims of causation? I bet half of the researchers on this list could have their work criticized in a similar manner. >"marijuana makes young black people mentally ill and violent." Interesting framing of his quoted passage. He doesn't say it makes "black people" mentally ill and violent, he says it makes all people mentally ill and violent. Whether or not that's true (I don't believe it is), that's a bad faith interpretation of his argument.
      - jki275 6y ago
        That linked article is a really great example of how not to credibly criticize someone's work. There's a ton of straw man argument going on in there.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - jki275 6y ago
      And fortunately those researchers are free to present their arguments to argue against his.
- asdkhadsj 6y ago
  I fear that will only mitigate the spread, not curb the belief in it, unfortunately. If anything so many conspiracy theories seem massively fueled even today by any attempts to silence. I fear something along the lines of education and critical thinking is the only way to deal with this problem. I just don't know how to get there :(
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    > I fear thats seems to be the root of the problem. we're a fear driven economy now. That's why conspiracy theories are rampant, as well as actual conspiracies. I liked the quote from Apocalypto: > Fear. Deep rotting fear. They were infected by it. Did you see? Fear is a sickness. It will crawl into the soul of anyone who engages it. It has tainted your peace already. I did not raise you to see you live with fear. Strike it from your heart. Do not bring it into our village.
    - dmix 6y ago
      Nothing generates fear and distrust like censorship.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Nah, plenty of other things do too.
- guscost 6y ago
  This book is absolutely, by no means, a “bad faith” effort. That accusation is extremely unfair and destructive.
- oyra 6y ago
  you have to be careful for what you wish for. get a book or two about soviet russia or nazi germany and learn how they 'loved their future' and baned and burned books. and what come out of it.
- jupp0r 6y ago
  I agree with you that it’s tiring, but censorship is not an option. Just imagine the “official” sources being propaganda and the truth being censored. Official sources are already spreading conspiracy theories about COVID right now (made in a lab, etc). This sword has two edges. The only thing that helps is to teach people to detect false information, ie education.
- unwoundmouse 6y ago
  I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t propagate disinformation as much as the next guy, but this is a strawman. Nowhere in the book does it say anything about Bill Gates behind covid, or any similarly ludicrous conspiracies. The book mentioned appears to be reasonable and fact based.
  - miguelmota 6y ago
    > fact based Does it represent both sides of the controversy equally or is it only nitpicked facts?
    - unwoundmouse 6y ago
      Are you saying we should censor information if it only represents one perspective?
      - miguelmota 6y ago
        No. That's not what I’m saying at all.
    - nmakow 6y ago
      When did we forfeit our ability to think critically and judge sources on our own?
      - JPKab 6y ago
        In the minds of the political elites, when Trump won the 2016 election. I hate the guy as much as anyone. My wife was crying. It was a shock. The DNC could have examined why they lost the key swing states by the thin margins they did in a deep, meaningful way. But that would have required acknowledging mistakes made by their highly paid political consultants and their own power brokers. But who wants to be the person to admit they screwed up and lost to a tangerine/chicken strip/cheetoh? "Nah, let's just blame the Russians. They hacked our emails, they put out ridiculous lies on social media..... yeah, that's it.... the Russians and dumb morons who believed them." At that moment, the party that has always defended civil liberties, always fought censorship by the right wing theocrats, suddenly decided it was just too dangerous to have uncensored speech. They pointed the finger at Twitter and Facebook, and threatened them. They whipped up the tech employees, making them feel responsible for the tangerine, when it was their own horror show of a primary process that doomed them. What's really weird is that if you think about it, the people who they think need curated, safe, censored information are the people who voted for Obama in 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016, or stayed home. They think their own voters in 2012 are too dumb to weed out misinformation themselves.
- h2odragon 6y ago
  Lots of people are looking for any story they can find to make all this make sense. The stories they're hearing don't make sense and keep changing, too. I don't think doubling down on the parochial "we'll tell you what to think, you can trust us" is going to win back their trust or make them any more willing to embrace the complexities and uncertainties they face. It'll definitely confirm that there's "seekrits they're not being told", however.
  - akozak 6y ago
    What stories don't make sense? A novel coronavirus caught fire in China, spread internationally, killed a lot of people, and some gov'ts fumbled the response and some didn't.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      "some gov'ts fumbled the response and some didn't" Who decided this is over and in the past tense? That's what troubling me, personally. I feel there's a point at which people are going to look down and realize we've run off a cliff into midair. We may not be in danger of having the hospitals overrun, so it could be ok, but it makes me nervous. If reopening goes well in the US and western Europe, what about the countries where the epidemic is spreading now at an ever increasing rate? Daily new cases have been trending up for roughly a month, and daily new deaths have been declining, but may be turning a corner right now.
- swiley 6y ago
  Making information unavailable justifies radical conspiracy theories and makes it harder to find trustworthy sources.
  - misiti3780 6y ago
    It also amplifies the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- misiti3780 6y ago
  Why does he think bill gates is behind COVID? That's a new one I have not seen yet.
  - JohnTHaller 6y ago
    Some loony hard right sites are spreading the idea that Bill Gates is using COVID to make people get a vaccine that's really just an excuse to microchip people to track them. I wish I was kidding. And they're likely sharing this conspiracy theory on their mobile phones.
  - cpcallen 6y ago
    I believe the story goes that Bill Gates created COVID-19 to force people to accept microchip implants that will then be used to control their minds.
    - godelski 6y ago
      I heard it was to track them. No body tell them about cell phones...
  - belltaco 6y ago
    It's very popular right wing conspiracy.
    - larrywright 6y ago
      Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is exactly right.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      >popular Do you have a source on that?
  - claytongulick 6y ago
    Most of what I've seen follows this general thinking (note, I don't agree with it, just what I've seen): 1) Bill Gates was convicted of monopolistic practices while he was running a global company attempting to seize power. 2) Almost immediately after this conviction, he suddenly becomes philanthropic and donates most of his wealth to a non-profit that he's in control of. 3) This non-profit runs social experiments throughout the world, including mass vaccination programs 4) He has a motivation (the exact nature of which is fuzzy in the right wing stuff I've seen) to have everyone vaccinated. (this is where some folks talk about microchips, others talk about financial motivations). 5) He is partners with George Soros, working together for a globalist agenda. According to the theory, their aim is to end nationalism and replace it with a unified earth type structure.
- rjkennedy98 6y ago
  Wow...just wow. The only way to deal with people having bad ideas is censorship? Seriously? What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? It really bothers me that there is a group of people begging for corporate overloads to control and think for the population. Its literally the opposite of everything this country stands for.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    > What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? What would education do except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas? What would trusted institutions do except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas? What would independent media do to improve things except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas?
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media?" Oh, my god! You want someone telling us how to think, only allowing the right groups to provide information, and having anyone else under the thumb of some financial interest?
  - tzs 6y ago
    > What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? They do not work, because the time and cost to create and widely disseminate falsehoods is much less than the time and cost to refute those falsehoods. See "Firehose of falsehood" [1], which is an apt name for what happens now thanks to the internet and social media greatly lowering the barriers to getting information widely distributed. As RAND researchers put it, "Don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
- StuntPope 6y ago
  How do you know that the book in question was putting up misinformation on a bad faith basis? You don't, and you won't, because the decision has been made for you. You honestly think there is no legitimate information to be added to the equation from outside official sources? And that official sources, are, by definition right about everything?
- godelski 6y ago
  I never get this. Why does Bill Gates need to inject people to track them when we're all carrying cell phones which provide far more data including much more refined location data than you could get will an implant. Just saying, if you're going to have a conspiracy, there's a much better one to use as your basis.
  - yters 6y ago
    it is not tracking, the conspiracy theory it is supposed to be a 'mark of the beast' that designates someone is part of the new world order founded by the antichrist the actual technology is a a sub skin electronic ink that is implanted during vaccination that can be read with a cell phone, used to track vaccinations in less developed countries
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Funny that people are downvoting it, it’s completely accurate. A lot of people believe this. I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t been told that directly by a true believer. A lot of right-leaning people still believe the DNC had a pedo operation in that pizza joint, and the Epstein stuff only convinces them even further.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        One of the primary functions of the mark of the beast is that Noone without it will be able to buy or sell. Assuming you believe in the Bible, it's pretty easy to see how the vaccine will put people in the situation that they can only participate in the economy if they have it. It honestly troubles me how little some of the people here is willing to look at the other side to even try to see where they're coming from.
        thatguy0900 6y ago
        For the record I consider myself an atheist and don't believe in the vaccine being the mark, but sure continue to downvote the reasons people believe what they do and act like it's all just random nonsense with no reason behind it, that's worked out great politically so far.
- rb808 6y ago
  Not only behind Corona virus but also the vaccine implants microchips to track you. The real story is not that a few nut jobs believe it - a huge chunk of the population actually believes it. https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-cor...
  - JPKab 6y ago
    The real story is that you think this is a remotely valid poll. YouGov is a joke. Massive selection bias in their polling.
- JPKab 6y ago
  I can think of nothing that epitomizes privilege more than living in a society with free speech, and being so willing to embrace censorship of ideas, even when they are clearly dumb or even dangerous. Democracy was a dangerous idea one time. I get your exhaustion. My dad succumbs to dumb shit all the time. A lot of it is on the mainstream corporate news channels. Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times. How arrogant is it to think that you are the enlightened one who doesn't get misinformed, while everyone else are ignorant rubes who have to be spoon fed curated information? Was your original conception of the Covid 19 death rate accurate? Mine wasn't. I was dramatically overestimating it. So were the news sources I was reading. If only somebody could have censored them before I was misinformed like the ignorant rube I am. Where were you to protect me?
  - tzs 6y ago
    > Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times. It's not accuracy that makes a source legitimate. Legitimate sources will publish misinformation. The differences between legitimate and illegitimate sources are that (1) legitimate sources make a considerable effort to not publish misinformation, (2) legitimate sources publish corrections and retractions when they find out that they have published misinformation, and (3) legitimate sources make sure to label opinion pieces as such.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      Can you give me a list of few legitimate sources out of mainstream media?
      - tzs 6y ago
        I'm assuming US. For newspapers Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post would be some examples. Really, most on this list [1] are going to be fine. For radio, NPR. For TV, the nightly news broadcasts of PBS and the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS). I'd be cautious about the cable news networks, like CNN and FOX. Filling a 24/7 schedule with news is hard without getting mind numbingly repetitive, filling time with a lot of fluff, having a lot of opinion shows, or having other random stuff. There is an interesting chart here [2] that has a plot of many news sources, with the horizontal axis being left/right bias, and the vertical axis being overall source reliability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pulitzer_Prize-winning_newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pulitzer_Prize-winnin... [2] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?...
- mnm1 6y ago
  So you blame the stupidity of your parents and others who believe idiotic conspiracy theories on platforms not banning things? How about we expect people to be minimally educated (because that is all it takes to figure out the difference) and have critical thinking so they can decide? Some of the things the CDC and WHO have put out should have been banned by this logic. Now we're supposed to trust Jeff Bezos and his crew to be the arbiters of truth? That's beyond absurd.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I understand where you’re coming from but it still seems dangerous. There will come a point when we will not be allowed to discuss inconvenient facts or debate controversial and sensitive topics (some would argue we are already there), and the definition of what fits into that bucket will shift. A vocal enough contingent just has to declare something a “bad faith idea” and you’re done. What’s worse is the new trend of digging up something you said/did that was of little societal impact at the time, but is now unforgivably offensive, and society punishing you retroactively under the new rules.
- DenisM 6y ago
  The necessity fo filter out bullshit, along with that of talking to other people or procure sustenance, is an integral part of the human condition.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  You spoke with your neighbor about this for a half hour and it sounds to me like he was unable to convince you that this was true. It seems like somehow you're immune to the spread of this information. Perhaps it's just the rubes that need to be protected from the bad information? Maybe there's some kind of gullibility test we could administer and if you fail you have to get your information filtered but if you pass you can read anything you want.
- pnako 6y ago
  Maybe you need to reconsider the way your communicate with your parents if you can't convince them, and your best alternative is to censor everything out there.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I understand your sentiment but this isn't going to work. You cannot possibly curate the worlds information to the set you approve of as safe for other people. You will only drive this stuff underground and make people justifiably angry and suspicious about your motives. Much better to build up trust by being honest, reasonable and listening to people without patronizing. That still will not work 100% but it will work better than this patronizing nonsense.
- machinehermit 6y ago
  If this book is a conspiracy theory then Standford's entire Hoover Institution is also. https://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution/videos That has been the most reasoned, data driven debates I have found since this all started and the narratives are basically nothing like the consensus in mass media.
Reedx 6y ago
Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a noble lie, but it destroys credibility and covers for the fact officials failed to prepare for the known threat of pandemics.
- benjohnson 6y ago
  Yep.. now people to can say "They" don't wan't you to know the truth.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    There was an article on the front page yesterday about the retraction of one of the hydroxychloroquine papers; all of the comments on the original article were of the "they don't want you to know the truth" sort. You cannot win against true believers.
    - Will_Parker 6y ago
      > You cannot win against true believers I'm a true believer in the drug's seventy year safety record when given as a prophylactic for malaria prevention millions of times and over the counter in many places.
      - Hnrobert42 6y ago
        I think you are missing the point.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Free flow of information is not the same as misinformation. Lack of understanding is not the same as misinforming. I 100% support restricting distribution of material that is based on conjecture and bullshit info. Especially when that information comes with a for-profit motive. This person can easily put their book for free on their own website if they really feel they have important information to share. Amazon can decide what goes on their platform. It always baffles me that people think that free speech comes with a right to have an audience. That's not what free speech is.
urthen 6y ago
A libertarian complaining about a private company choosing not to do business with them? Damn those big corporations and their... checks notes freedom to do business with who they choose?
- wuliwong 6y ago
  This is such a tired trope. There is nothing inconsistent about a libertarian disagreeing with the actions of a private business.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  I'm not sure who of the people complaining here are libertarians, and, to be honest, I don't care. Whenever this discussion about the power of platforms like amazon over our discourse comes up, someone dismisses it with the accusation that some libertarian somewhere is a hypocrite about this. So what?
- kazinator 6y ago
  Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. Can a USA corporation sell rocket launchers to Iran? Can a USA company buy the president of Ruritania a Rolex watch in order to beat a French company in a bridge construction bid? Can a USA corporation get together with its cohorts and agree not to sell some commodity below a mutually agreed price? Can a US citizen obtain and act on advice/information from whomever whatsoever, at any time whatsoever, about trading any equity whatsoever? How do you know that Amazon isn't turning down Covid-19 books due to some regulatory pressure from the government?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> A libertarian complaining about a private company choosing not to do business with them? Damn those big corporations and their... checks notes freedom to do business with who they choose? > Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. But wouldn't a libertarian (or at least some of them) be opposed to those restrictions on the individual liberty of corporations?
lsy 6y ago
Declining to sell a book in a store isn’t “censorship”. The author could easily host the book on their own website. If the government forces them to take it down, then it’s censorship.
- wuliwong 6y ago
  This is technically incorrect. You might argue that censorship is commonly understood to mean specifically government censorship. But censorship by itself does not have to refer to the actions of the state.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    You have it completely backwards :) It's is technically correct. Legally and conceptually censorship is defined only as censorship done by the government. Censorship is commonly understood to mean any kind of censoring or removing of content.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Google Dictionary agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster, Brittanica and Wikipedia disagree.
      - HideousKojima 6y ago
        Even the Google dictionary result doesn't say it's exclusive to governmental action
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I'm not selling that book either. Am I censoring it too?
    - wuliwong 6y ago
      I don't believe the definition applies to individuals.
guscost 6y ago
Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246 https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246
- misiti3780 6y ago
  I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.
  - lol139189 6y ago
    Are you new here?
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      having seen to many unreasonable downvotes, i have the opposite reaction. when i see a gray post i tend to expect the downvotes to be unreasonable. frequently it is something that i don't agree with but feel is a comment made in good faith that doesn't deserve to be downvoted. rarely it is something unacceptable that deserved its downvotes. (like this comment is made in good faith but off topic...)
      - briefcomment 6y ago
        My comment was definitely off topic, but the message never gets traction when it's on its own.
code4tee 6y ago
There’s a difference between censorship and a book publisher deciding they don’t want to publish or sell a book. This appears to be a case of the later. He’s free to print and distribute his book, but no private company is under any obligation to help him in that endeavor.
- akerro 6y ago
  Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf, they don't seem to care about it as long as it brings profit?
  - kazinator 6y ago
    Books about about Covid-19, whether truths or conspiracy theories, can be reasonably expected to bring in profit.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    Mein Kampf is an important document for understanding one of the most significant and tragic events in history. Only the truly ignorant would try to remove it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - usaar333 6y ago
      Hardly that simple. Germany had banned publication until 2015.
      - detaro 6y ago
        Notably not under German law against extremist propaganda, but through copyright law, also affecting some international printings of it. Which explains the date of 2015: 70 years after the death of the author. Unedited/-commented versions were put on the index later (which e.g. forbids advertising them in Germany, selling to minors, ...)
    - deleted 6y ago
zpeti 6y ago
First they came for controversial right wing views... then they came for Covid “disinformation”... Putting the joke aside, I really think we are starting to see that once this door opens, it will only get worse. The pressure will increase to ban books and it will happen, whether or not it’s controversial or disinformation or whatever. I can only hope this will be enough of a market opportunity that someone else can build a business to rival things like amazon.
- virtualritz 6y ago
  We are living in an age where you can soon write a service running in the cloud that pulls text snippets from your favorite conspiracy theorists blogs, compiles them into books with sensationalist titles and automatically and constantly submits them to Amazon for publication to have unsuspecting buyers succumb to the resp. promoted world view. Essentially what people are already doing with public domain works or Wikipedia articles only with the intent of disinformation rather than profit (or at least both). Then Amazon will need more sophisticated tools to detect and filter those out ... you see where this is going.
- chasd00 6y ago
  yeah once they decided to remove something from their platform on their own accord the implication is they endorse everything remaining. I can buy Metallica's Kill'em All album and art. Amazon endorses violence. I can also buy various guides and howto's for unconventional warfare. Amazon endorses terrorism.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  That will be terribly difficult given that payment processors are also on this ideological censorship train. I think there might be a valid argument as to a single seller refusing to sell something, but once you get three credit card companies towing that line, that's pretty much unavoidable unless you go to crypto (which eliminates most customers).
oefrha 6y ago
> and he’s even a Twitter blue check. This line made me laugh. As if a Twitter blue check means anything at all. Even used “even”. Regarding the “censorship”, I’m not sure why anyone thinks Amazon as a publisher should just publish anything. They are not even close to being a monopoly and there are a million other channels to publish.
762236 6y ago
This use of the verb 'spike' does not conform to any definition I found in the dictionary. Is it commonly used this way?
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Yes. It's very common, especially in publishing and media circles. It's also in the dictionary that's built-in to macOS.
throwanem 6y ago
I wonder why he hasn't used his freedom of speech to make the text of his pamphlet freely available on his own website, instead of depending on a publisher to carry it. Granted, it would be harder to monetize this speech, that way. He'd have to find a payment provider, take payments directly, et cetera. But I don't see why those ancillaries should detract from upholding a principle that clearly means so much to him.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  He's not asking a lot of money for it, and he put in the work. People still gotta eat man. Maybe not this guy with his backing and work and I'm sure he has plenty of money, but to answer your point, other people who have been censored have released their materials for free. Take for example the book "Nobody Died at Sandyhook"
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    From what I'm reading, I haven't purchased it, seems to be the length of an article or blog post. Seems like selling a "chapter" of a "book".
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I mean, that guy ended up getting paid -$450,000, so... https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-author-must-pay-victims-dad-450000-jury-says https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook...
guscost 6y ago
Just a note that the book in question has been re-published: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089P216NP/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089P216NP/
Apocryphon 6y ago
There's a lot of issues at play here- what constitutes censorship, the monopolistic power of big tech platforms, how to address misinformation. I suspect the root cause is that we live in an extremely segmented information society now, modern life is incredibly complex and self-filtered information bubbles very easy to fall into. Echoing some of the comments, the Streisand effect will only disseminate misinfo and disinfo further, and create a martyr effect that self-defeatingly amplifies the power of the content being suppressed.* But there's really no other good options either. We live in an age where one set of facts will only be countered by a different set of opposing facts, a different list of footnotes and sources, all tailored for that opposite opinion. No one really has time to check all of the links anymore. So much of society simply rests on blind faith on one's own set of experts and gurus. The polarized environment renders your opposite experts into dupes, liars, or agents of shadowy powers, worthy of the worst insults. "Education" doesn't really help fight misconception or conspiracy theories because any inconvenient fact is easily rejected as propaganda by your enemies. * Though not in all cases. In some cases de-platforming has been very effective https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/ https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming... How does this apply to tech specifically? Amidst this climate of post-truth and truthiness, the big tech platforms have become de facto gatekeepers, guardians of public truth. Something they neither are capable of being, nor should they be. In a healthy civilization, the government, businesses, and civil society should all have roles to play in promoting harmony and fostering understanding. But we've somehow let the infection of division and ignorance take root, so here we are. On the flip side, something I was thinking about regarding the recent Facebook/Twitter controversies and policing or not policing the president's speech: how is it really different from '90s AOL chat rooms or '00s vBulletin message boards having TOS that forbid certain types of inflammatory, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content? Why was everyone fine with those supposedly "anti-free speech" or "unconstitutional" policies in past decades? Was it simply a matter of scale? Those platforms and online communities were smaller so fewer people got mad about them? Because for a long time, people posting on the internet simply accepted that there is no absolute free speech anywhere, even if they hated the mods.
dmwallin 6y ago
If you are worried about a private company "censoring" your speech, you should take this as a sign that you've allowed said company to get far too big. Restricting private speech by increasing the reach of government to limit it will only backfire in the end if your goal is freedom of speech. The right approach for free speech is smaller companies AND smaller government.
- cousin_it 6y ago
  > If you are worried about a private company "censoring" your speech, you should take this as a sign that you've allowed said company to get far too big. That makes sense, but what if many private companies agree to censor something? It doesn't have to be a shady deal in a smoke filled room, maybe just everyone depends on advertisers, and advertisers don't want to be associated with some message. I think the right way is creating and popularizing spaces for speech that don't lend themselves to censorship, but somehow mitigate the problems of non-censorship, such as astroturfing. The internet is a wonderful foundation for such spaces, we're very lucky, but there's a lot of work to do.
ncr 6y ago
The book is back on amazon as of now https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089P216NP/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089P216NP/
- basic612 6y ago
  I wonder if this will be noted on the easy blog or on hacker news. It seems that people are too caught up being outraged to notice. Comments made here three hours ago about the book now being available on Amazon are buried under piles of diatribes. Let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good sanctimonious rant.
  - basic612 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23431502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23431502
  - StuntPope 6y ago
    AxisOfEasy blog updated
  - kelnos 6y ago
    While I'm not an advocate of piles of diatribes, I think Amazon's ability and desire to censor is a topic still worthy of discussion. If Amazon is in the habit of censoring things it doesn't like unless it gets a lot of bad PR about it, that's a problem.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Amazon’s ban is a problem even if they reversed it due to publicity. It means that this is going on even when you don’t hear about it.
    - basic612 6y ago
      Does stating that they will not offer for sale amount to a ban? I wonder if Amazon would have reversed their original decision on more detailed review, without the publicity you speak of. Are we sure that the blog post or this discourse are the causes that effected the book being offered for sale in the end? I would have read the blog post and HN comments with less skepticism if there was evidence that Amazon had continued to refuse to sell the book after multiple submissions and signs of human / managerial interaction in the process on their part.
JackFr 6y ago
> So as a libertarian, it pains me to say, I would encourage and welcome anti-trust investigations into big tech platforms such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Apple. What you mean to say is you’re not a libertarian. You have a relationship with Amazon which previously consisted of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges. Amazon determined the exchanges were no longer beneficial and elected to stop. You wanted to continue, and so you invite the full might of government to threaten to destroy Amazon (but not actually destroy them cause then you wouldn’t get what you want.) You pull in Facebook and Google and try to make a larger argument to obfuscate the fact that you are a very unprincipled libertarian.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
StuntPope 6y ago
It's ironic that an article that seeks to examine the subtle aspects of this situation, after hitting HN Top 10 and front page, gets FLAGGED as inappropriate (it's unflagged now, for the moment). What is it about cognitive dissonance can't you handle? Only approved opinions allowed?
dmix 6y ago
Big Streisand effect on this one, I followed him in the past and noticed his Twitter has exploded in followers/attention since Amazon censored his book. I decided to read the book to see why it was so threatening and worthy of Amazon crossing into such a dangerous line into censorship. And it was mostly a milquetoast glorified blog post. I also watched that stupid Plandemic video, which I never would have otherwise, when I heard Google was deleting it from peoples private data backups. Getting banned like this is a great way to get promotion.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  Top of the linked article says: > the bootlickers on Hackernews I skimmed and found a lot of inflammatory phrasing, so that was the end of it for me.
  - dmix 6y ago
    I was referring to the book author: https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1268529570480824320 https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1268529570480824320 I didn't read the post in question since I knew the gist already.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Ah, apologies :(
StuntPope 6y ago
It's gonna get flagged again, I can feel it. What I love about this place is everybody is so open minded.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  It doesn't get flagged. To be fair to HN, they do want just tech news. Most COIVD and riot posts are weighted down. It looks like it takes them 3~4 times as many votes to rise as other articles. I can understand them wanting to keep HN focused on tech. It's a good distraction during this. But when we do occasionally see these posts before they get flushed to page 4 or 5, I love the fact that the comments are filled with a lot of rational back and fourth and good arguments. Reddit is the ultimate cesspool of extreme-left right now in almost every city/state/country sub. It's absolutely insane and people who do not agree with official narratives are constantly downvoted to oblivion.
  - StuntPope 6y ago
    Thanks for the context. My writing focus has been on big tech, censorship, deplatforming and related topics and the last 4 or 5 articles I've posted here were flagged despite being heavily upvoted and making the front page. I can see people flagging it if it nobody comments, nobody upvotes it and it's clear nobody is interested or finds it germane. Ok. But it always seemed as if people were using the flag function as a "downvote". They don't like the message or the ramifications of the article so they flag it. It really is ridiculous. You can disagree with something without deeming it inappropriate and deciding on behalf of everybody else that they shouldn't even get the chance to form their own opinion on it. The way I see it, if an article didn't address a topic relevant to HN, then it wouldn't rise. It's that simple.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I think it's a hard call. I've seen a lot of articles recently that are interesting and germane, yet clearly written from the perspective of fighting some political battle. I think it's appropriate to flag such posts even if a lot of people upvote them.
WalterBright 6y ago
We should remember Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch...
yters 6y ago
amazon has already been banning anti vax books for a little while
dmix 6y ago
I've noticed the group that has the significant dislike and distrust of authority figures, and tech companies in general, are the same people who more than happy at giving them carte blanche, gleefully encouraging these sorts of censorship systems. The basic idea puts an incredible amount of trust in authority figures with systems that have almost no appeals process or transparency - unless of course you happen to be popular enough or stir up enough noise on the internet to get internet gatekeepers attention. Merely debating whether it's good or bad to be censoring misinformation, while simultaneously glossing over the means, processes, and people being employed to enforce these broad post at megacorps is a giant disingenuous waste of time and riddled with contradictions.
DenisM 6y ago
Most things we consider “true” today were considered “false” right before they became “true”. We’re just not great at being selective when discarding things, so it’s best to keep them around.
4636760295 6y ago
Whether you agree or not with the content of the book, censorship is pretty much always wrong. If we censored all history about the Nazi's and their ideology, we'd never be able to learn to avoid such atrocities.
entropyneur 6y ago
I am all for private businesses' right to censor their platforms as they please. But let's consider why they do so. Amazon and others aren't banning "covid dissidents" because they are worried about people's health nor is it because of some evil conspiracy. The reason is simple and obvious: because they've determined it to be the best course of action PR-wise. Or in other words, it's because what the public wants. And that is where it stars to rub me very, very wrong way. Just think about it. Not only the average Joe knows exactly how this totally novel global problem with a shit ton of unknown variables should be handled (that's par the course). But he's so certain of his knowledge that he wants anyone trying to voice a different opinion to get the treatment that was previously reserved only for obvious dangerous crazies like the nazis. To me this is the empirical proof that the slippery slope does exist, unfolding before our eyes.
- _-o-_ 6y ago
  And how average Joes form opinions on complex subjects? They don't. Opinions are hammered into general public by a limited number of major media platforms or independent influences.
  - js8 6y ago
    There is this logical error that comes with elitism. People are generally simple, therefore must have been manipulated by a much smarter "center". But what if opinions on complex subjects are instead formed as an emergent phenomena of interactions of many humans? It reminds me of Cartesian theatre, the idea that there has to be a central place in the brain where "real decisions are made".
mritun 6y ago
Most people here on HackerNews are smart, educated, intelligent (probably in the upper IQ percentile) and perfectly able to decide for themselves what is good and bad. HackerNews moderations and moderators are this suppressing speech of these people and imho this is anti free speech. Can we start a petition for banning moderation on this website please.
- downerending 6y ago
  I'll accept snark, but grammar, please.
downerending 6y ago
If they start censoring dinosaur porn, then I'll really be pissed.
GhostVII 6y ago
It looks like the rejection email was from Amazon KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing). So Amazon isn't refusing to sell the book, just refusing to publish it, from my understanding. That seems like a much less significant issue if that is the case - there are lots of alternative publishers to Amazon, so it is less concerning if they have more strict standards, since you could just go through another publisher and sell on Amazon through them.
Sum_Guy 6y ago
I do find it odd, looking back at the short history of the world dealing with covid, that there has been no (that I'm aware of) institutional strategy in combating a "novel" virus with a "novel" therapy (ie the off-label use of existing pharmaceuticals) and the MSM is and has been poised to attack that strategy and the small-scale, uncoordinated efforts when they discover them happening. If Covid-19 were a movie, the hero would have stumbled across a clever combination of generic drugs that would turn the tide of global death. But here in reality, any such efforts are vilified and attacked for no coherent (but seemingly organized) reason.
albmoriconi 6y ago
I honestly can't see the censorship happening here; I can only see the book has been rejected for self-publishing on KDP and an author with a clear political agenda is using this thing, negligible per-se, to push it even further. For example, on his twitter feed he writes in response to another user with the nickname "Libraries Aren't Neutral": "Do you think non-leftist patrons have a place on your library?". This is to me the hallmark of a person in bad faith that is using a minor nuisance (just use another publisher!) to push ideas to a group of persons that will stop to first impressions and shout censorship. The remark on "libraries not neutral = libraries leftist" is also terrible: - even if a leftist librarian decides not to sell your book, you have all right-wing librarians that will sell you, so why the fuss? - it creates the strange association "left = lockdown : right = freedom"; this ignores lots of things, like how Sweden, a social democracy often the target of attacks from this political side, had pretty good results with no lockdown; or how in many countries, after initial disagreements, both political parts convened on the necessity of the lockdown because the situation granted it, but they were also quick to raise it when possible. The one thing I have no respect for is the fact that these persons screaming censorship ignore that serious debate around lockdown measures is effectively happening, far from their cospirationist pamphlets; it's a measure with an heavy toll on economics and physical an emotional well-being of the population, and everyone would hate to enforce it again; however, at least here in Italy, we have the feeling things would have gotten terribly dire were it not for the 2 months of lock-down; we had now 30 days of reopenings, with only a few cautions like using masks in closed spaces, and the situation seems mostly in control. Of course it's only a feeling: at the moment nobody I know of has proof that the lockdown was the only way to stop contagion; but I can't avoid being extremely skeptical of the raising movement of people absolutely certain that lockdown is a no-go in every circumstance, because I have absolutely no idea how they got the data and the insight to come to this conclusion so quickly when many are still counting bodies.

209 points by StuntPope 6y ago

After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively moderating, just like how HN is moderated.

jki275 6y ago
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a compilation of data that hasn't been widely reported.
- pen2l 6y ago
  The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clinicians-who-oppose-junk-science-about-marijuana https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clin... -- a letter signed by over 100 scholars and researchers strongly condemning his previous book which says that marijuana is the culprit behind violence
  - np_tedious 6y ago
    That's an interesting article. I think I'd like to take a look first hand. Perhaps I'll buy some of his books so I can decide for myself. Where are they available?
    - jki275 6y ago
      And that's the rub.
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    The arguments against his book in that post are not particularly damning. More like par-for-the-course for pop science. And it's not like academia is immune to this. Selection bias? Claims of causation? I bet half of the researchers on this list could have their work criticized in a similar manner. >"marijuana makes young black people mentally ill and violent." Interesting framing of his quoted passage. He doesn't say it makes "black people" mentally ill and violent, he says it makes all people mentally ill and violent. Whether or not that's true (I don't believe it is), that's a bad faith interpretation of his argument.
    - jki275 6y ago
      That linked article is a really great example of how not to credibly criticize someone's work. There's a ton of straw man argument going on in there.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - jki275 6y ago
    And fortunately those researchers are free to present their arguments to argue against his.
asdkhadsj 6y ago
I fear that will only mitigate the spread, not curb the belief in it, unfortunately. If anything so many conspiracy theories seem massively fueled even today by any attempts to silence. I fear something along the lines of education and critical thinking is the only way to deal with this problem. I just don't know how to get there :(
- devmunchies 6y ago
  > I fear thats seems to be the root of the problem. we're a fear driven economy now. That's why conspiracy theories are rampant, as well as actual conspiracies. I liked the quote from Apocalypto: > Fear. Deep rotting fear. They were infected by it. Did you see? Fear is a sickness. It will crawl into the soul of anyone who engages it. It has tainted your peace already. I did not raise you to see you live with fear. Strike it from your heart. Do not bring it into our village.
  - dmix 6y ago
    Nothing generates fear and distrust like censorship.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Nah, plenty of other things do too.
guscost 6y ago
This book is absolutely, by no means, a “bad faith” effort. That accusation is extremely unfair and destructive.
oyra 6y ago
you have to be careful for what you wish for. get a book or two about soviet russia or nazi germany and learn how they 'loved their future' and baned and burned books. and what come out of it.
jupp0r 6y ago
I agree with you that it’s tiring, but censorship is not an option. Just imagine the “official” sources being propaganda and the truth being censored. Official sources are already spreading conspiracy theories about COVID right now (made in a lab, etc). This sword has two edges. The only thing that helps is to teach people to detect false information, ie education.
unwoundmouse 6y ago
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t propagate disinformation as much as the next guy, but this is a strawman. Nowhere in the book does it say anything about Bill Gates behind covid, or any similarly ludicrous conspiracies. The book mentioned appears to be reasonable and fact based.
- miguelmota 6y ago
  > fact based Does it represent both sides of the controversy equally or is it only nitpicked facts?
  - unwoundmouse 6y ago
    Are you saying we should censor information if it only represents one perspective?
    - miguelmota 6y ago
      No. That's not what I’m saying at all.
  - nmakow 6y ago
    When did we forfeit our ability to think critically and judge sources on our own?
    - JPKab 6y ago
      In the minds of the political elites, when Trump won the 2016 election. I hate the guy as much as anyone. My wife was crying. It was a shock. The DNC could have examined why they lost the key swing states by the thin margins they did in a deep, meaningful way. But that would have required acknowledging mistakes made by their highly paid political consultants and their own power brokers. But who wants to be the person to admit they screwed up and lost to a tangerine/chicken strip/cheetoh? "Nah, let's just blame the Russians. They hacked our emails, they put out ridiculous lies on social media..... yeah, that's it.... the Russians and dumb morons who believed them." At that moment, the party that has always defended civil liberties, always fought censorship by the right wing theocrats, suddenly decided it was just too dangerous to have uncensored speech. They pointed the finger at Twitter and Facebook, and threatened them. They whipped up the tech employees, making them feel responsible for the tangerine, when it was their own horror show of a primary process that doomed them. What's really weird is that if you think about it, the people who they think need curated, safe, censored information are the people who voted for Obama in 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016, or stayed home. They think their own voters in 2012 are too dumb to weed out misinformation themselves.
h2odragon 6y ago
Lots of people are looking for any story they can find to make all this make sense. The stories they're hearing don't make sense and keep changing, too. I don't think doubling down on the parochial "we'll tell you what to think, you can trust us" is going to win back their trust or make them any more willing to embrace the complexities and uncertainties they face. It'll definitely confirm that there's "seekrits they're not being told", however.
- akozak 6y ago
  What stories don't make sense? A novel coronavirus caught fire in China, spread internationally, killed a lot of people, and some gov'ts fumbled the response and some didn't.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    "some gov'ts fumbled the response and some didn't" Who decided this is over and in the past tense? That's what troubling me, personally. I feel there's a point at which people are going to look down and realize we've run off a cliff into midair. We may not be in danger of having the hospitals overrun, so it could be ok, but it makes me nervous. If reopening goes well in the US and western Europe, what about the countries where the epidemic is spreading now at an ever increasing rate? Daily new cases have been trending up for roughly a month, and daily new deaths have been declining, but may be turning a corner right now.
swiley 6y ago
Making information unavailable justifies radical conspiracy theories and makes it harder to find trustworthy sources.
- misiti3780 6y ago
  It also amplifies the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
misiti3780 6y ago
Why does he think bill gates is behind COVID? That's a new one I have not seen yet.
- JohnTHaller 6y ago
  Some loony hard right sites are spreading the idea that Bill Gates is using COVID to make people get a vaccine that's really just an excuse to microchip people to track them. I wish I was kidding. And they're likely sharing this conspiracy theory on their mobile phones.
- cpcallen 6y ago
  I believe the story goes that Bill Gates created COVID-19 to force people to accept microchip implants that will then be used to control their minds.
  - godelski 6y ago
    I heard it was to track them. No body tell them about cell phones...
- belltaco 6y ago
  It's very popular right wing conspiracy.
  - larrywright 6y ago
    Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is exactly right.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    >popular Do you have a source on that?
- claytongulick 6y ago
  Most of what I've seen follows this general thinking (note, I don't agree with it, just what I've seen): 1) Bill Gates was convicted of monopolistic practices while he was running a global company attempting to seize power. 2) Almost immediately after this conviction, he suddenly becomes philanthropic and donates most of his wealth to a non-profit that he's in control of. 3) This non-profit runs social experiments throughout the world, including mass vaccination programs 4) He has a motivation (the exact nature of which is fuzzy in the right wing stuff I've seen) to have everyone vaccinated. (this is where some folks talk about microchips, others talk about financial motivations). 5) He is partners with George Soros, working together for a globalist agenda. According to the theory, their aim is to end nationalism and replace it with a unified earth type structure.
rjkennedy98 6y ago
Wow...just wow. The only way to deal with people having bad ideas is censorship? Seriously? What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? It really bothers me that there is a group of people begging for corporate overloads to control and think for the population. Its literally the opposite of everything this country stands for.
- wvenable 6y ago
  > What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? What would education do except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas? What would trusted institutions do except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas? What would independent media do to improve things except promote good ideas and reject bad ideas?
- mcguire 6y ago
  "What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media?" Oh, my god! You want someone telling us how to think, only allowing the right groups to provide information, and having anyone else under the thumb of some financial interest?
- tzs 6y ago
  > What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? They do not work, because the time and cost to create and widely disseminate falsehoods is much less than the time and cost to refute those falsehoods. See "Firehose of falsehood" [1], which is an apt name for what happens now thanks to the internet and social media greatly lowering the barriers to getting information widely distributed. As RAND researchers put it, "Don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
StuntPope 6y ago
How do you know that the book in question was putting up misinformation on a bad faith basis? You don't, and you won't, because the decision has been made for you. You honestly think there is no legitimate information to be added to the equation from outside official sources? And that official sources, are, by definition right about everything?
godelski 6y ago
I never get this. Why does Bill Gates need to inject people to track them when we're all carrying cell phones which provide far more data including much more refined location data than you could get will an implant. Just saying, if you're going to have a conspiracy, there's a much better one to use as your basis.
- yters 6y ago
  it is not tracking, the conspiracy theory it is supposed to be a 'mark of the beast' that designates someone is part of the new world order founded by the antichrist the actual technology is a a sub skin electronic ink that is implanted during vaccination that can be read with a cell phone, used to track vaccinations in less developed countries
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Funny that people are downvoting it, it’s completely accurate. A lot of people believe this. I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t been told that directly by a true believer. A lot of right-leaning people still believe the DNC had a pedo operation in that pizza joint, and the Epstein stuff only convinces them even further.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      One of the primary functions of the mark of the beast is that Noone without it will be able to buy or sell. Assuming you believe in the Bible, it's pretty easy to see how the vaccine will put people in the situation that they can only participate in the economy if they have it. It honestly troubles me how little some of the people here is willing to look at the other side to even try to see where they're coming from.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        For the record I consider myself an atheist and don't believe in the vaccine being the mark, but sure continue to downvote the reasons people believe what they do and act like it's all just random nonsense with no reason behind it, that's worked out great politically so far.
rb808 6y ago
Not only behind Corona virus but also the vaccine implants microchips to track you. The real story is not that a few nut jobs believe it - a huge chunk of the population actually believes it. https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-cor...
- JPKab 6y ago
  The real story is that you think this is a remotely valid poll. YouGov is a joke. Massive selection bias in their polling.
JPKab 6y ago
I can think of nothing that epitomizes privilege more than living in a society with free speech, and being so willing to embrace censorship of ideas, even when they are clearly dumb or even dangerous. Democracy was a dangerous idea one time. I get your exhaustion. My dad succumbs to dumb shit all the time. A lot of it is on the mainstream corporate news channels. Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times. How arrogant is it to think that you are the enlightened one who doesn't get misinformed, while everyone else are ignorant rubes who have to be spoon fed curated information? Was your original conception of the Covid 19 death rate accurate? Mine wasn't. I was dramatically overestimating it. So were the news sources I was reading. If only somebody could have censored them before I was misinformed like the ignorant rube I am. Where were you to protect me?
- tzs 6y ago
  > Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times. It's not accuracy that makes a source legitimate. Legitimate sources will publish misinformation. The differences between legitimate and illegitimate sources are that (1) legitimate sources make a considerable effort to not publish misinformation, (2) legitimate sources publish corrections and retractions when they find out that they have published misinformation, and (3) legitimate sources make sure to label opinion pieces as such.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Can you give me a list of few legitimate sources out of mainstream media?
    - tzs 6y ago
      I'm assuming US. For newspapers Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post would be some examples. Really, most on this list [1] are going to be fine. For radio, NPR. For TV, the nightly news broadcasts of PBS and the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS). I'd be cautious about the cable news networks, like CNN and FOX. Filling a 24/7 schedule with news is hard without getting mind numbingly repetitive, filling time with a lot of fluff, having a lot of opinion shows, or having other random stuff. There is an interesting chart here [2] that has a plot of many news sources, with the horizontal axis being left/right bias, and the vertical axis being overall source reliability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pulitzer_Prize-winning_newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pulitzer_Prize-winnin... [2] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?...
mnm1 6y ago
So you blame the stupidity of your parents and others who believe idiotic conspiracy theories on platforms not banning things? How about we expect people to be minimally educated (because that is all it takes to figure out the difference) and have critical thinking so they can decide? Some of the things the CDC and WHO have put out should have been banned by this logic. Now we're supposed to trust Jeff Bezos and his crew to be the arbiters of truth? That's beyond absurd.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I understand where you’re coming from but it still seems dangerous. There will come a point when we will not be allowed to discuss inconvenient facts or debate controversial and sensitive topics (some would argue we are already there), and the definition of what fits into that bucket will shift. A vocal enough contingent just has to declare something a “bad faith idea” and you’re done. What’s worse is the new trend of digging up something you said/did that was of little societal impact at the time, but is now unforgivably offensive, and society punishing you retroactively under the new rules.
DenisM 6y ago
The necessity fo filter out bullshit, along with that of talking to other people or procure sustenance, is an integral part of the human condition.
tengbretson 6y ago
You spoke with your neighbor about this for a half hour and it sounds to me like he was unable to convince you that this was true. It seems like somehow you're immune to the spread of this information. Perhaps it's just the rubes that need to be protected from the bad information? Maybe there's some kind of gullibility test we could administer and if you fail you have to get your information filtered but if you pass you can read anything you want.
pnako 6y ago
Maybe you need to reconsider the way your communicate with your parents if you can't convince them, and your best alternative is to censor everything out there.
zarkov99 6y ago
I understand your sentiment but this isn't going to work. You cannot possibly curate the worlds information to the set you approve of as safe for other people. You will only drive this stuff underground and make people justifiably angry and suspicious about your motives. Much better to build up trust by being honest, reasonable and listening to people without patronizing. That still will not work 100% but it will work better than this patronizing nonsense.
machinehermit 6y ago
If this book is a conspiracy theory then Standford's entire Hoover Institution is also. https://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution/videos That has been the most reasoned, data driven debates I have found since this all started and the narratives are basically nothing like the consensus in mass media.

Reedx 6y ago

Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a noble lie, but it destroys credibility and covers for the fact officials failed to prepare for the known threat of pandemics.

benjohnson 6y ago
Yep.. now people to can say "They" don't wan't you to know the truth.
- mcguire 6y ago
  There was an article on the front page yesterday about the retraction of one of the hydroxychloroquine papers; all of the comments on the original article were of the "they don't want you to know the truth" sort. You cannot win against true believers.
  - Will_Parker 6y ago
    > You cannot win against true believers I'm a true believer in the drug's seventy year safety record when given as a prophylactic for malaria prevention millions of times and over the counter in many places.
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
      I think you are missing the point.
whoisjuan 6y ago
Free flow of information is not the same as misinformation. Lack of understanding is not the same as misinforming. I 100% support restricting distribution of material that is based on conjecture and bullshit info. Especially when that information comes with a for-profit motive. This person can easily put their book for free on their own website if they really feel they have important information to share. Amazon can decide what goes on their platform. It always baffles me that people think that free speech comes with a right to have an audience. That's not what free speech is.

urthen 6y ago

A libertarian complaining about a private company choosing not to do business with them? Damn those big corporations and their... checks notes freedom to do business with who they choose?

wuliwong 6y ago
This is such a tired trope. There is nothing inconsistent about a libertarian disagreeing with the actions of a private business.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
I'm not sure who of the people complaining here are libertarians, and, to be honest, I don't care. Whenever this discussion about the power of platforms like amazon over our discourse comes up, someone dismisses it with the accusation that some libertarian somewhere is a hypocrite about this. So what?
kazinator 6y ago
Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. Can a USA corporation sell rocket launchers to Iran? Can a USA company buy the president of Ruritania a Rolex watch in order to beat a French company in a bridge construction bid? Can a USA corporation get together with its cohorts and agree not to sell some commodity below a mutually agreed price? Can a US citizen obtain and act on advice/information from whomever whatsoever, at any time whatsoever, about trading any equity whatsoever? How do you know that Amazon isn't turning down Covid-19 books due to some regulatory pressure from the government?
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> A libertarian complaining about a private company choosing not to do business with them? Damn those big corporations and their... checks notes freedom to do business with who they choose? > Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. But wouldn't a libertarian (or at least some of them) be opposed to those restrictions on the individual liberty of corporations?

lsy 6y ago

Declining to sell a book in a store isn’t “censorship”. The author could easily host the book on their own website. If the government forces them to take it down, then it’s censorship.

wuliwong 6y ago
This is technically incorrect. You might argue that censorship is commonly understood to mean specifically government censorship. But censorship by itself does not have to refer to the actions of the state.
- nabla9 6y ago
  You have it completely backwards :) It's is technically correct. Legally and conceptually censorship is defined only as censorship done by the government. Censorship is commonly understood to mean any kind of censoring or removing of content.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Google Dictionary agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster, Brittanica and Wikipedia disagree.
    - HideousKojima 6y ago
      Even the Google dictionary result doesn't say it's exclusive to governmental action
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I'm not selling that book either. Am I censoring it too?
  - wuliwong 6y ago
    I don't believe the definition applies to individuals.

guscost 6y ago

Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246 https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246

misiti3780 6y ago
I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.
- lol139189 6y ago
  Are you new here?
- briefcomment 6y ago
  HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    having seen to many unreasonable downvotes, i have the opposite reaction. when i see a gray post i tend to expect the downvotes to be unreasonable. frequently it is something that i don't agree with but feel is a comment made in good faith that doesn't deserve to be downvoted. rarely it is something unacceptable that deserved its downvotes. (like this comment is made in good faith but off topic...)
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      My comment was definitely off topic, but the message never gets traction when it's on its own.

code4tee 6y ago

There’s a difference between censorship and a book publisher deciding they don’t want to publish or sell a book. This appears to be a case of the later. He’s free to print and distribute his book, but no private company is under any obligation to help him in that endeavor.

akerro 6y ago
Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf, they don't seem to care about it as long as it brings profit?
- kazinator 6y ago
  Books about about Covid-19, whether truths or conspiracy theories, can be reasonably expected to bring in profit.
- panzagl 6y ago
  Mein Kampf is an important document for understanding one of the most significant and tragic events in history. Only the truly ignorant would try to remove it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - usaar333 6y ago
    Hardly that simple. Germany had banned publication until 2015.
    - detaro 6y ago
      Notably not under German law against extremist propaganda, but through copyright law, also affecting some international printings of it. Which explains the date of 2015: 70 years after the death of the author. Unedited/-commented versions were put on the index later (which e.g. forbids advertising them in Germany, selling to minors, ...)
  - deleted 6y ago

zpeti 6y ago

First they came for controversial right wing views... then they came for Covid “disinformation”... Putting the joke aside, I really think we are starting to see that once this door opens, it will only get worse. The pressure will increase to ban books and it will happen, whether or not it’s controversial or disinformation or whatever. I can only hope this will be enough of a market opportunity that someone else can build a business to rival things like amazon.

virtualritz 6y ago
We are living in an age where you can soon write a service running in the cloud that pulls text snippets from your favorite conspiracy theorists blogs, compiles them into books with sensationalist titles and automatically and constantly submits them to Amazon for publication to have unsuspecting buyers succumb to the resp. promoted world view. Essentially what people are already doing with public domain works or Wikipedia articles only with the intent of disinformation rather than profit (or at least both). Then Amazon will need more sophisticated tools to detect and filter those out ... you see where this is going.
chasd00 6y ago
yeah once they decided to remove something from their platform on their own accord the implication is they endorse everything remaining. I can buy Metallica's Kill'em All album and art. Amazon endorses violence. I can also buy various guides and howto's for unconventional warfare. Amazon endorses terrorism.
Karunamon 6y ago
That will be terribly difficult given that payment processors are also on this ideological censorship train. I think there might be a valid argument as to a single seller refusing to sell something, but once you get three credit card companies towing that line, that's pretty much unavoidable unless you go to crypto (which eliminates most customers).

oefrha 6y ago

> and he’s even a Twitter blue check. This line made me laugh. As if a Twitter blue check means anything at all. Even used “even”. Regarding the “censorship”, I’m not sure why anyone thinks Amazon as a publisher should just publish anything. They are not even close to being a monopoly and there are a million other channels to publish.

762236 6y ago

This use of the verb 'spike' does not conform to any definition I found in the dictionary. Is it commonly used this way?

reaperducer 6y ago
Yes. It's very common, especially in publishing and media circles. It's also in the dictionary that's built-in to macOS.

throwanem 6y ago

I wonder why he hasn't used his freedom of speech to make the text of his pamphlet freely available on his own website, instead of depending on a publisher to carry it. Granted, it would be harder to monetize this speech, that way. He'd have to find a payment provider, take payments directly, et cetera. But I don't see why those ancillaries should detract from upholding a principle that clearly means so much to him.

djsumdog 6y ago
He's not asking a lot of money for it, and he put in the work. People still gotta eat man. Maybe not this guy with his backing and work and I'm sure he has plenty of money, but to answer your point, other people who have been censored have released their materials for free. Take for example the book "Nobody Died at Sandyhook"
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  From what I'm reading, I haven't purchased it, seems to be the length of an article or blog post. Seems like selling a "chapter" of a "book".
- throwanem 6y ago
  I mean, that guy ended up getting paid -$450,000, so... https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-author-must-pay-victims-dad-450000-jury-says https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook...

guscost 6y ago

Just a note that the book in question has been re-published: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089P216NP/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089P216NP/

Apocryphon 6y ago

There's a lot of issues at play here- what constitutes censorship, the monopolistic power of big tech platforms, how to address misinformation. I suspect the root cause is that we live in an extremely segmented information society now, modern life is incredibly complex and self-filtered information bubbles very easy to fall into. Echoing some of the comments, the Streisand effect will only disseminate misinfo and disinfo further, and create a martyr effect that self-defeatingly amplifies the power of the content being suppressed.* But there's really no other good options either. We live in an age where one set of facts will only be countered by a different set of opposing facts, a different list of footnotes and sources, all tailored for that opposite opinion. No one really has time to check all of the links anymore. So much of society simply rests on blind faith on one's own set of experts and gurus. The polarized environment renders your opposite experts into dupes, liars, or agents of shadowy powers, worthy of the worst insults. "Education" doesn't really help fight misconception or conspiracy theories because any inconvenient fact is easily rejected as propaganda by your enemies. * Though not in all cases. In some cases de-platforming has been very effective https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/ https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming... How does this apply to tech specifically? Amidst this climate of post-truth and truthiness, the big tech platforms have become de facto gatekeepers, guardians of public truth. Something they neither are capable of being, nor should they be. In a healthy civilization, the government, businesses, and civil society should all have roles to play in promoting harmony and fostering understanding. But we've somehow let the infection of division and ignorance take root, so here we are. On the flip side, something I was thinking about regarding the recent Facebook/Twitter controversies and policing or not policing the president's speech: how is it really different from '90s AOL chat rooms or '00s vBulletin message boards having TOS that forbid certain types of inflammatory, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content? Why was everyone fine with those supposedly "anti-free speech" or "unconstitutional" policies in past decades? Was it simply a matter of scale? Those platforms and online communities were smaller so fewer people got mad about them? Because for a long time, people posting on the internet simply accepted that there is no absolute free speech anywhere, even if they hated the mods.

dmwallin 6y ago

If you are worried about a private company "censoring" your speech, you should take this as a sign that you've allowed said company to get far too big. Restricting private speech by increasing the reach of government to limit it will only backfire in the end if your goal is freedom of speech. The right approach for free speech is smaller companies AND smaller government.

cousin_it 6y ago
> If you are worried about a private company "censoring" your speech, you should take this as a sign that you've allowed said company to get far too big. That makes sense, but what if many private companies agree to censor something? It doesn't have to be a shady deal in a smoke filled room, maybe just everyone depends on advertisers, and advertisers don't want to be associated with some message. I think the right way is creating and popularizing spaces for speech that don't lend themselves to censorship, but somehow mitigate the problems of non-censorship, such as astroturfing. The internet is a wonderful foundation for such spaces, we're very lucky, but there's a lot of work to do.

ncr 6y ago

The book is back on amazon as of now https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089P216NP/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089P216NP/

basic612 6y ago
I wonder if this will be noted on the easy blog or on hacker news. It seems that people are too caught up being outraged to notice. Comments made here three hours ago about the book now being available on Amazon are buried under piles of diatribes. Let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good sanctimonious rant.
- basic612 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23431502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23431502
- StuntPope 6y ago
  AxisOfEasy blog updated
- kelnos 6y ago
  While I'm not an advocate of piles of diatribes, I think Amazon's ability and desire to censor is a topic still worthy of discussion. If Amazon is in the habit of censoring things it doesn't like unless it gets a lot of bad PR about it, that's a problem.
- ponker 6y ago
  Amazon’s ban is a problem even if they reversed it due to publicity. It means that this is going on even when you don’t hear about it.
  - basic612 6y ago
    Does stating that they will not offer for sale amount to a ban? I wonder if Amazon would have reversed their original decision on more detailed review, without the publicity you speak of. Are we sure that the blog post or this discourse are the causes that effected the book being offered for sale in the end? I would have read the blog post and HN comments with less skepticism if there was evidence that Amazon had continued to refuse to sell the book after multiple submissions and signs of human / managerial interaction in the process on their part.

JackFr 6y ago

> So as a libertarian, it pains me to say, I would encourage and welcome anti-trust investigations into big tech platforms such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Apple. What you mean to say is you’re not a libertarian. You have a relationship with Amazon which previously consisted of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges. Amazon determined the exchanges were no longer beneficial and elected to stop. You wanted to continue, and so you invite the full might of government to threaten to destroy Amazon (but not actually destroy them cause then you wouldn’t get what you want.) You pull in Facebook and Google and try to make a larger argument to obfuscate the fact that you are a very unprincipled libertarian.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

StuntPope 6y ago

It's ironic that an article that seeks to examine the subtle aspects of this situation, after hitting HN Top 10 and front page, gets FLAGGED as inappropriate (it's unflagged now, for the moment). What is it about cognitive dissonance can't you handle? Only approved opinions allowed?

dmix 6y ago

Big Streisand effect on this one, I followed him in the past and noticed his Twitter has exploded in followers/attention since Amazon censored his book. I decided to read the book to see why it was so threatening and worthy of Amazon crossing into such a dangerous line into censorship. And it was mostly a milquetoast glorified blog post. I also watched that stupid Plandemic video, which I never would have otherwise, when I heard Google was deleting it from peoples private data backups. Getting banned like this is a great way to get promotion.

floatingatoll 6y ago
Top of the linked article says: > the bootlickers on Hackernews I skimmed and found a lot of inflammatory phrasing, so that was the end of it for me.
- dmix 6y ago
  I was referring to the book author: https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1268529570480824320 https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1268529570480824320 I didn't read the post in question since I knew the gist already.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    Ah, apologies :(

StuntPope 6y ago

It's gonna get flagged again, I can feel it. What I love about this place is everybody is so open minded.

djsumdog 6y ago
It doesn't get flagged. To be fair to HN, they do want just tech news. Most COIVD and riot posts are weighted down. It looks like it takes them 3~4 times as many votes to rise as other articles. I can understand them wanting to keep HN focused on tech. It's a good distraction during this. But when we do occasionally see these posts before they get flushed to page 4 or 5, I love the fact that the comments are filled with a lot of rational back and fourth and good arguments. Reddit is the ultimate cesspool of extreme-left right now in almost every city/state/country sub. It's absolutely insane and people who do not agree with official narratives are constantly downvoted to oblivion.
- StuntPope 6y ago
  Thanks for the context. My writing focus has been on big tech, censorship, deplatforming and related topics and the last 4 or 5 articles I've posted here were flagged despite being heavily upvoted and making the front page. I can see people flagging it if it nobody comments, nobody upvotes it and it's clear nobody is interested or finds it germane. Ok. But it always seemed as if people were using the flag function as a "downvote". They don't like the message or the ramifications of the article so they flag it. It really is ridiculous. You can disagree with something without deeming it inappropriate and deciding on behalf of everybody else that they shouldn't even get the chance to form their own opinion on it. The way I see it, if an article didn't address a topic relevant to HN, then it wouldn't rise. It's that simple.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think it's a hard call. I've seen a lot of articles recently that are interesting and germane, yet clearly written from the perspective of fighting some political battle. I think it's appropriate to flag such posts even if a lot of people upvote them.

WalterBright 6y ago

We should remember Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch...

yters 6y ago

amazon has already been banning anti vax books for a little while

dmix 6y ago

I've noticed the group that has the significant dislike and distrust of authority figures, and tech companies in general, are the same people who more than happy at giving them carte blanche, gleefully encouraging these sorts of censorship systems. The basic idea puts an incredible amount of trust in authority figures with systems that have almost no appeals process or transparency - unless of course you happen to be popular enough or stir up enough noise on the internet to get internet gatekeepers attention. Merely debating whether it's good or bad to be censoring misinformation, while simultaneously glossing over the means, processes, and people being employed to enforce these broad post at megacorps is a giant disingenuous waste of time and riddled with contradictions.

DenisM 6y ago

Most things we consider “true” today were considered “false” right before they became “true”. We’re just not great at being selective when discarding things, so it’s best to keep them around.

4636760295 6y ago

Whether you agree or not with the content of the book, censorship is pretty much always wrong. If we censored all history about the Nazi's and their ideology, we'd never be able to learn to avoid such atrocities.

entropyneur 6y ago

I am all for private businesses' right to censor their platforms as they please. But let's consider why they do so. Amazon and others aren't banning "covid dissidents" because they are worried about people's health nor is it because of some evil conspiracy. The reason is simple and obvious: because they've determined it to be the best course of action PR-wise. Or in other words, it's because what the public wants. And that is where it stars to rub me very, very wrong way. Just think about it. Not only the average Joe knows exactly how this totally novel global problem with a shit ton of unknown variables should be handled (that's par the course). But he's so certain of his knowledge that he wants anyone trying to voice a different opinion to get the treatment that was previously reserved only for obvious dangerous crazies like the nazis. To me this is the empirical proof that the slippery slope does exist, unfolding before our eyes.

_-o-_ 6y ago
And how average Joes form opinions on complex subjects? They don't. Opinions are hammered into general public by a limited number of major media platforms or independent influences.
- js8 6y ago
  There is this logical error that comes with elitism. People are generally simple, therefore must have been manipulated by a much smarter "center". But what if opinions on complex subjects are instead formed as an emergent phenomena of interactions of many humans? It reminds me of Cartesian theatre, the idea that there has to be a central place in the brain where "real decisions are made".

mritun 6y ago

Most people here on HackerNews are smart, educated, intelligent (probably in the upper IQ percentile) and perfectly able to decide for themselves what is good and bad. HackerNews moderations and moderators are this suppressing speech of these people and imho this is anti free speech. Can we start a petition for banning moderation on this website please.

downerending 6y ago
I'll accept snark, but grammar, please.

downerending 6y ago

If they start censoring dinosaur porn, then I'll really be pissed.

GhostVII 6y ago

It looks like the rejection email was from Amazon KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing). So Amazon isn't refusing to sell the book, just refusing to publish it, from my understanding. That seems like a much less significant issue if that is the case - there are lots of alternative publishers to Amazon, so it is less concerning if they have more strict standards, since you could just go through another publisher and sell on Amazon through them.

Sum_Guy 6y ago

I do find it odd, looking back at the short history of the world dealing with covid, that there has been no (that I'm aware of) institutional strategy in combating a "novel" virus with a "novel" therapy (ie the off-label use of existing pharmaceuticals) and the MSM is and has been poised to attack that strategy and the small-scale, uncoordinated efforts when they discover them happening. If Covid-19 were a movie, the hero would have stumbled across a clever combination of generic drugs that would turn the tide of global death. But here in reality, any such efforts are vilified and attacked for no coherent (but seemingly organized) reason.

albmoriconi 6y ago

I honestly can't see the censorship happening here; I can only see the book has been rejected for self-publishing on KDP and an author with a clear political agenda is using this thing, negligible per-se, to push it even further. For example, on his twitter feed he writes in response to another user with the nickname "Libraries Aren't Neutral": "Do you think non-leftist patrons have a place on your library?". This is to me the hallmark of a person in bad faith that is using a minor nuisance (just use another publisher!) to push ideas to a group of persons that will stop to first impressions and shout censorship. The remark on "libraries not neutral = libraries leftist" is also terrible: - even if a leftist librarian decides not to sell your book, you have all right-wing librarians that will sell you, so why the fuss? - it creates the strange association "left = lockdown : right = freedom"; this ignores lots of things, like how Sweden, a social democracy often the target of attacks from this political side, had pretty good results with no lockdown; or how in many countries, after initial disagreements, both political parts convened on the necessity of the lockdown because the situation granted it, but they were also quick to raise it when possible. The one thing I have no respect for is the fact that these persons screaming censorship ignore that serious debate around lockdown measures is effectively happening, far from their cospirationist pamphlets; it's a measure with an heavy toll on economics and physical an emotional well-being of the population, and everyone would hate to enforce it again; however, at least here in Italy, we have the feeling things would have gotten terribly dire were it not for the 2 months of lock-down; we had now 30 days of reopenings, with only a few cautions like using masks in closed spaces, and the situation seems mostly in control. Of course it's only a feeling: at the moment nobody I know of has proof that the lockdown was the only way to stop contagion; but I can't avoid being extremely skeptical of the raising movement of people absolutely certain that lockdown is a no-go in every circumstance, because I have absolutely no idea how they got the data and the insight to come to this conclusion so quickly when many are still counting bodies.