5 ms·

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 m

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.

zepto 6y ago
‘who decides what is bullshit’ Is the usual problem with this.
- lol139189 6y ago
  It's not really a problem - obviously, the hacker news hive mind (aka those of you who don't get shut down by mr. dang) decides what's bullshit.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Well, with ideas like the one that claims COVID is spread to 5G networks, it's pretty easy to draw the line. But I get what you're saying. The closer you get to a rational argument the harder it is to scrutinize it.
  - lol139189 6y ago
    Oh, go lie down in a fucking ditch, you censorship-hungry cunt. It's only easy to draw the line because you think you're the one who gets to do it.
  - offmycloud 6y ago
    Can you please provide a quote from the book in question?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      That comment isn't about the book in question so I'm not sure why you're asking them?
- reaperducer 6y ago
  I don't buy the argument that bullshit exists on a perpetually grey gradient. There are things that are clearly bullshit.
  - Reedx 6y ago
    I think flat earth falls into that category. However... the problem is there are also things that seem clearly like bullshit that we later find out not to be. Have you ever been completely convinced about something that turned out to be entirely wrong? Almost certainly, probably more than a few times. It happens to all of us. And sometimes this happens on a societal scale with things like science and civil rights. Ideas not accepted at the time, attempted silence, but fortunately resisted censorship until history was able to bore them out.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Nobody is making that argument. The problem is that there are fewer clearly bullshit things than people think.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Yes, that is what they told Galileo. They were wrong of course, but we are so much wiser now, we could not possibly make the same mistakes.
solarkraft 6y ago
> That's not what free speech is. The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. Would you make the same argument about being restricted in what you can say over a private chat service? Over the last decades and especially during the pandemic how people assemble and use their right to free speech has massively shifted. Before you assume that I hold an strong opinion on this: I don't think I do. I don't know where I want the line to be.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> That's not what free speech is. > The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. The solution is to not let any one platform get that big and essential as a matter of policy. For free speech to actually be positive, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty important for that speech to be subjected to some kind of peer review process before it's broadcast widely. We used to have that when broadcasting was more limited and expensive, but by destroying those limits, social media also weakened the peer review. People are more comfortable with smaller actors making editorial decisions, we need those kinds of decisions, so we need to keep the actors smaller.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.
jtgi8jgfdg 6y ago
Have you kept up with our esteemed epidemiologists? They did an abrupt U-turn within a week: “We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... How can we decide what's scientific anymore?
- dmix 6y ago
  > How can we decide what's scientific anymore? Trust Amazon moderators will do the right thing, of course! I'm sure Amazon can build a massive team of highly educated unbiased technocrats to carefully parse through the tens of millions of content being added to their services any one day. There's no way this could fail.
claytongulick 6y ago
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who watches the watchmen?
WalterBright 6y ago
We can't allow anyone to publish a book advocating heliocentrism, that is heresy!
Alex63 6y ago
Someone is going to be busy... Chariots of the Gods [1] The GMO Deception [2] How to End the Autism Epidemic [3] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken-ebook/dp/B07RWPNK4N/ https://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken-ebook... [2] https://www.amazon.com/GMO-Deception-Corporations-Government-Environment/dp/1628736607/ https://www.amazon.com/GMO-Deception-Corporations-Government... [3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/1603588248/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/16...
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Ooh! Oooh!, I've got one (in Hans Landa voice) [4] https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collion-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp/1906833117/ https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collion-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp...
zarkov99 6y ago
What do you mean the right to have an audience? People still need to buy the freaking thing, why does Amazon get to decide if they can or cannot? Different rules apply when you are a monopoly. Amazon refusing to sell a book is very different from a Mom and Pop shop doing the same.

zepto 6y ago

‘who decides what is bullshit’ Is the usual problem with this.

lol139189 6y ago
It's not really a problem - obviously, the hacker news hive mind (aka those of you who don't get shut down by mr. dang) decides what's bullshit.
whoisjuan 6y ago
Well, with ideas like the one that claims COVID is spread to 5G networks, it's pretty easy to draw the line. But I get what you're saying. The closer you get to a rational argument the harder it is to scrutinize it.
- lol139189 6y ago
  Oh, go lie down in a fucking ditch, you censorship-hungry cunt. It's only easy to draw the line because you think you're the one who gets to do it.
- offmycloud 6y ago
  Can you please provide a quote from the book in question?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    That comment isn't about the book in question so I'm not sure why you're asking them?
reaperducer 6y ago
I don't buy the argument that bullshit exists on a perpetually grey gradient. There are things that are clearly bullshit.
- Reedx 6y ago
  I think flat earth falls into that category. However... the problem is there are also things that seem clearly like bullshit that we later find out not to be. Have you ever been completely convinced about something that turned out to be entirely wrong? Almost certainly, probably more than a few times. It happens to all of us. And sometimes this happens on a societal scale with things like science and civil rights. Ideas not accepted at the time, attempted silence, but fortunately resisted censorship until history was able to bore them out.
- zepto 6y ago
  Nobody is making that argument. The problem is that there are fewer clearly bullshit things than people think.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Yes, that is what they told Galileo. They were wrong of course, but we are so much wiser now, we could not possibly make the same mistakes.

solarkraft 6y ago

> That's not what free speech is. The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. Would you make the same argument about being restricted in what you can say over a private chat service? Over the last decades and especially during the pandemic how people assemble and use their right to free speech has massively shifted. Before you assume that I hold an strong opinion on this: I don't think I do. I don't know where I want the line to be.

ardy42 6y ago
>> That's not what free speech is. > The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. The solution is to not let any one platform get that big and essential as a matter of policy. For free speech to actually be positive, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty important for that speech to be subjected to some kind of peer review process before it's broadcast widely. We used to have that when broadcasting was more limited and expensive, but by destroying those limits, social media also weakened the peer review. People are more comfortable with smaller actors making editorial decisions, we need those kinds of decisions, so we need to keep the actors smaller.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.

jtgi8jgfdg 6y ago

Have you kept up with our esteemed epidemiologists? They did an abrupt U-turn within a week: “We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... How can we decide what's scientific anymore?

dmix 6y ago
> How can we decide what's scientific anymore? Trust Amazon moderators will do the right thing, of course! I'm sure Amazon can build a massive team of highly educated unbiased technocrats to carefully parse through the tens of millions of content being added to their services any one day. There's no way this could fail.

claytongulick 6y ago

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who watches the watchmen?

WalterBright 6y ago

We can't allow anyone to publish a book advocating heliocentrism, that is heresy!

Alex63 6y ago

Someone is going to be busy... Chariots of the Gods [1] The GMO Deception [2] How to End the Autism Epidemic [3] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken-ebook/dp/B07RWPNK4N/ https://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken-ebook... [2] https://www.amazon.com/GMO-Deception-Corporations-Government-Environment/dp/1628736607/ https://www.amazon.com/GMO-Deception-Corporations-Government... [3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/1603588248/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/16...

selimthegrim 6y ago
Ooh! Oooh!, I've got one (in Hans Landa voice) [4] https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collion-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp/1906833117/ https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collion-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp...

zarkov99 6y ago

What do you mean the right to have an audience? People still need to buy the freaking thing, why does Amazon get to decide if they can or cannot? Different rules apply when you are a monopoly. Amazon refusing to sell a book is very different from a Mom and Pop shop doing the same.