6 ms·

Surprised by the majority of comments here. How many of you have actually looked at these pictures? A private entity decided to stop publishing certain things.

Surprised by the majority of comments here. How many of you have actually looked at these pictures? A private entity decided to stop publishing certain things. Another private entity is declining to sell old copies of said things. This is not “cancel culture” like conservative commentators want to make it out to be - and I think the publisher and now eBay are making the right call - children are impressionable, and presenting racial caricatures like these to them is not good.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
A handful of companies influencing the overton window of the entire nation in response to easily upset Twitter mobs is precisely what I consider to be part of cancel culture.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The irony is that the people I see complaining about are usually very pro market forces and let businesses do what they want type people.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alentist 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26351550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26351550
allturtles 6y ago
> children are impressionable Like how exposure to pictures of demons and pretending to be wizards turns young D&D players into satanists? And exposure to violent rap lyrics turns them into murderers? I have looked at the pictures, some make me cringe a bit, others don't seem like a big deal to me. And ultimately the Seuss copyright holders can do what they want, it's their property. I'm not sure why eBay feels the need to get involved. But I found the "think of the children" arguments for banning media equally unconvincing when they were conservative talking points thirty years ago. Edit: Also, almost all kids will be exposed to these books with a parent present, having it read to them. The parent can contextualize the images however they like, reducing any risk of bad 'impressions'.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  I saw some of the images. eBay's actions seem a bit heavy handed, but I think its entirely appropriate that the Seuss estate wishes to stop producing new copies. If I was a parent and I randomly bought a Seuss book and got the racist caricature I saw, I'd be disappointed in the brand. Most purchasers of Seuss books are not looking to start a dialog with their toddler about racism.
beervirus 6y ago
I don't need a company to tell me what books I'm allowed to read to my kids.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  They aren't though. Does every company that published any book have a responsibility to continue publishing them forever? Of course not.
  - disposekinetics 6y ago
    Then make them public domain. Right now it is illegal to produce them but the publisher has no intent on publishing them.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      I think your definition of the availability is excessively imprecise. A quick look shows lots of libraries that have the one I checked. edit: I believe you had originally written "procure". Maybe I misread, but that's why my comment is phrased as such.
      - disposekinetics 6y ago
        I think you might be correct, I tend to see copyright itself as censorious, but copyright on something you have no intent allowing access to seems downright unacceptable.
  - viklove 6y ago
    Ebay isn't publishing anything. It costs more for them to censor these listings than it does for them to leave them up.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      So? Does ebay have a responsibility to host every listing that is submitted? Of course not.
Peepootoler 6y ago
Step 1: privatize everything Step 2: censorship now doesn't exist anymore since "muh private entities, what are you, a commie?" Brilliant. What a beautiful and free society we have created for ourselves.
- dingus9 6y ago
  There will always be alternative marketplaces hosted by alternative web hosts that are willing to continue doing business with companies that are deemed dangerous to society... ...until banks and merchant processors cut off financial access to these "dangerous" entities and their service providers. Wikileaks was a victim of this year's ago, and served as a great example of why cryptocurrencies are important.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

A handful of companies influencing the overton window of the entire nation in response to easily upset Twitter mobs is precisely what I consider to be part of cancel culture.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
The irony is that the people I see complaining about are usually very pro market forces and let businesses do what they want type people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alentist 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26351550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26351550

allturtles 6y ago

> children are impressionable Like how exposure to pictures of demons and pretending to be wizards turns young D&D players into satanists? And exposure to violent rap lyrics turns them into murderers? I have looked at the pictures, some make me cringe a bit, others don't seem like a big deal to me. And ultimately the Seuss copyright holders can do what they want, it's their property. I'm not sure why eBay feels the need to get involved. But I found the "think of the children" arguments for banning media equally unconvincing when they were conservative talking points thirty years ago. Edit: Also, almost all kids will be exposed to these books with a parent present, having it read to them. The parent can contextualize the images however they like, reducing any risk of bad 'impressions'.

cwkoss 6y ago
I saw some of the images. eBay's actions seem a bit heavy handed, but I think its entirely appropriate that the Seuss estate wishes to stop producing new copies. If I was a parent and I randomly bought a Seuss book and got the racist caricature I saw, I'd be disappointed in the brand. Most purchasers of Seuss books are not looking to start a dialog with their toddler about racism.

beervirus 6y ago

I don't need a company to tell me what books I'm allowed to read to my kids.

maxerickson 6y ago
They aren't though. Does every company that published any book have a responsibility to continue publishing them forever? Of course not.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  Then make them public domain. Right now it is illegal to produce them but the publisher has no intent on publishing them.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I think your definition of the availability is excessively imprecise. A quick look shows lots of libraries that have the one I checked. edit: I believe you had originally written "procure". Maybe I misread, but that's why my comment is phrased as such.
    - disposekinetics 6y ago
      I think you might be correct, I tend to see copyright itself as censorious, but copyright on something you have no intent allowing access to seems downright unacceptable.
- viklove 6y ago
  Ebay isn't publishing anything. It costs more for them to censor these listings than it does for them to leave them up.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    So? Does ebay have a responsibility to host every listing that is submitted? Of course not.

Peepootoler 6y ago

Step 1: privatize everything Step 2: censorship now doesn't exist anymore since "muh private entities, what are you, a commie?" Brilliant. What a beautiful and free society we have created for ourselves.

dingus9 6y ago
There will always be alternative marketplaces hosted by alternative web hosts that are willing to continue doing business with companies that are deemed dangerous to society... ...until banks and merchant processors cut off financial access to these "dangerous" entities and their service providers. Wikileaks was a victim of this year's ago, and served as a great example of why cryptocurrencies are important.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]