5 ms·

Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it for

Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it for some odd reasons, because otherwise at this scale it's some kind of censorship? At some scale we can't act like "it's just private business" because it's naive

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. No, the vegan shop HAS DECIDED to not sell meat. They could just as easily decide to sell parma ham to worthy customers and stop being an exclusively vegan shop. Do you think that 7-11 is "expected" to not sell eggplant parm too? Why not? They already sell pizza and taquitos. But I don't get to make them sell eggplant parm if they don't want to even though eggplant parm would go great with taquitos. > Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it Ok, so, 94 countries have no criminal legislation prohibiting slavery according to https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596 https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost.... So should Amazon, the global seller of everything, also sell slaves in those countries? I mean if they're expected to not decide to not sell something because they don't like it, surely the answer must be yes.
- tester34 6y ago
  Sure let's jump into extremas There's giant gap between selling slaves and selling books that challenge some way of perceiving things. One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally, the second at best triggers some people. Was academically proven that this book is bullshit? if yes, then everything's fair, if not then...? I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    So you're saying we should socialize Amazon because it's too big to be one corporation? Furthermore, they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? I mean a lot of people on here hate socialism (I don't, though I dis-like authoritarian versions), it seems though a lot of the people crying foul about corps censoring are the same ones who are libertarian-leaning anti-regulation for everybody and every company and are very leery of "socialism". I'd agree with Amazon having too much power over it's brand and what it sells, though I don't feel this is an issue. I'm more concerned with Amazon selling knock-off products of its vendors under it's own brand-name then removing their "competing" products. I'm also more concerned with google/apple's control over the app stores, especially Apple since you can't side-load apps. While, I abhor parler, for example - I can see them doing this more and more with any social media app that could potentially disagree with their world view. I'd like to see more censorship resistant apps pop up just for the sake of freedom (even to be a jerk), I'm also a fan of decentralizing everything some-day and owning your identity and I think Google/Apple could hinder that if they see these de-centralized apps as extremist-enabling apps (even if they aren't really) and just blanket dis-allow them. There's a fine-line that leftists (and I am one) are walking with censoring everything. I keep thinking of "thought police" in 1984, and it makes me think that even well-intentioned ideas can back-fire and create the very thing they're trying to avoid. At the same time the terrorism at the capital was scary, we came very close to losing our entire country and installing a dictator for life. So we need to avoid that, but also retain freedoms and the internets "wild west" ability to bring marginalized voices to the fore-front but not if they're inciting violence. Kind of an autistic ramble, but I don't know what the best options are. I think we need new social networks and news networks that grade everything around perceived "truthfulness" and you can also see who ranked what and what side they lean politically so you know if their ranking is biased, or something. Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months.
    - tester34 6y ago
      >they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? There's difference between "this product is not selling, we're stopping it" or any other similar business related reasoning and "randomly" deciding "this book is not right, thus we censor this" There's nothing wrong with Amazon stopping selling stuff due to business/legal reasons and so on but if their reasoning is like "people shouldn't read this" or "we don't like this idea", then it's very bad. It's not trivial problem, but I think it's important. >Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months. Maybe web 2.0 was a mistake, huh.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    > Sure let's jump into extremas You think that 7-11 selling eggplant parm or a specialty food shop deciding to sell some other specialty food are extremes? I feel like you're strategically choosing to ignore half of what I say because it doesn't fit into your narrative. > One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally And is totally legal in those countries which clearly have different ideas about what is ok than you do and therefore may legitimately expect Amazon to operate with their ideals just like you expect Amazon to operate with yours. > the second at best triggers some people. Everyone who studies media, culture, psychology, and the relationship between trauma and lifelong suffering disagrees with your framing of this, so you're probably missing something. > I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth They aren't. They're deciding what they sell. Sidebar curiosity: Do you know what "trigger" actually means, and does your minimization of it mean that you don't believe that PTSD is real or serious?
    - tester34 6y ago
      >You think that 7-11 selling eggplant parm or a specialty food shop deciding to sell some other specialty food are extremes? No, I've been talking about slavery part. >And is totally legal in those countries which clearly have different ideas about what is ok than you do and therefore may legitimately expect Amazon to operate with their ideals just like you expect Amazon to operate with yours. Fortunely we have ethics, morality, international laws, human rights and many more and we're actually able to draw conclusions that slavery is bad. >Everyone who studies media, culture, psychology, and the relationship between trauma and lifelong suffering disagrees with your framing of this, so you're probably missing something. No doubt that I'm missing something. >They aren't. They're deciding what they sell. Limiting access can be form of it. Google removing something from its search is really being close to some kind of censorship. Google pushing one narration over other in its search index is very significant way of creating the "truth". Some people says that a lie repeated thousand times becomes a truth and I definitely believe that it's true to significant extent. >Sidebar curiosity: Do you know what "trigger" actually means, and does your minimization of it mean that you don't believe that PTSD is real or serious? I do believe that PTSD is real, but I'm not talking about trigger as of flashbacks.

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago

> Vegan shop is expected to not sell meat. No, the vegan shop HAS DECIDED to not sell meat. They could just as easily decide to sell parma ham to worthy customers and stop being an exclusively vegan shop. Do you think that 7-11 is "expected" to not sell eggplant parm too? Why not? They already sell pizza and taquitos. But I don't get to make them sell eggplant parm if they don't want to even though eggplant parm would go great with taquitos. > Global shop which sells almost everything is expected to not decide to not sell something because they not like it Ok, so, 94 countries have no criminal legislation prohibiting slavery according to https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596 https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost.... So should Amazon, the global seller of everything, also sell slaves in those countries? I mean if they're expected to not decide to not sell something because they don't like it, surely the answer must be yes.

tester34 6y ago
Sure let's jump into extremas There's giant gap between selling slaves and selling books that challenge some way of perceiving things. One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally, the second at best triggers some people. Was academically proven that this book is bullshit? if yes, then everything's fair, if not then...? I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  So you're saying we should socialize Amazon because it's too big to be one corporation? Furthermore, they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? I mean a lot of people on here hate socialism (I don't, though I dis-like authoritarian versions), it seems though a lot of the people crying foul about corps censoring are the same ones who are libertarian-leaning anti-regulation for everybody and every company and are very leery of "socialism". I'd agree with Amazon having too much power over it's brand and what it sells, though I don't feel this is an issue. I'm more concerned with Amazon selling knock-off products of its vendors under it's own brand-name then removing their "competing" products. I'm also more concerned with google/apple's control over the app stores, especially Apple since you can't side-load apps. While, I abhor parler, for example - I can see them doing this more and more with any social media app that could potentially disagree with their world view. I'd like to see more censorship resistant apps pop up just for the sake of freedom (even to be a jerk), I'm also a fan of decentralizing everything some-day and owning your identity and I think Google/Apple could hinder that if they see these de-centralized apps as extremist-enabling apps (even if they aren't really) and just blanket dis-allow them. There's a fine-line that leftists (and I am one) are walking with censoring everything. I keep thinking of "thought police" in 1984, and it makes me think that even well-intentioned ideas can back-fire and create the very thing they're trying to avoid. At the same time the terrorism at the capital was scary, we came very close to losing our entire country and installing a dictator for life. So we need to avoid that, but also retain freedoms and the internets "wild west" ability to bring marginalized voices to the fore-front but not if they're inciting violence. Kind of an autistic ramble, but I don't know what the best options are. I think we need new social networks and news networks that grade everything around perceived "truthfulness" and you can also see who ranked what and what side they lean politically so you know if their ranking is biased, or something. Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months.
  - tester34 6y ago
    >they shouldn't be able to dictate what they sell on their platform? There's difference between "this product is not selling, we're stopping it" or any other similar business related reasoning and "randomly" deciding "this book is not right, thus we censor this" There's nothing wrong with Amazon stopping selling stuff due to business/legal reasons and so on but if their reasoning is like "people shouldn't read this" or "we don't like this idea", then it's very bad. It's not trivial problem, but I think it's important. >Somedays I think we'd all just be better if a solar flare hits and disabled electronics for the next 20 months. Maybe web 2.0 was a mistake, huh.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > Sure let's jump into extremas You think that 7-11 selling eggplant parm or a specialty food shop deciding to sell some other specialty food are extremes? I feel like you're strategically choosing to ignore half of what I say because it doesn't fit into your narrative. > One causes actual harm - both physically and mentally And is totally legal in those countries which clearly have different ideas about what is ok than you do and therefore may legitimately expect Amazon to operate with their ideals just like you expect Amazon to operate with yours. > the second at best triggers some people. Everyone who studies media, culture, psychology, and the relationship between trauma and lifelong suffering disagrees with your framing of this, so you're probably missing something. > I'd rather avoid allowing corpos to decide what's the truth They aren't. They're deciding what they sell. Sidebar curiosity: Do you know what "trigger" actually means, and does your minimization of it mean that you don't believe that PTSD is real or serious?
  - tester34 6y ago
    >You think that 7-11 selling eggplant parm or a specialty food shop deciding to sell some other specialty food are extremes? No, I've been talking about slavery part. >And is totally legal in those countries which clearly have different ideas about what is ok than you do and therefore may legitimately expect Amazon to operate with their ideals just like you expect Amazon to operate with yours. Fortunely we have ethics, morality, international laws, human rights and many more and we're actually able to draw conclusions that slavery is bad. >Everyone who studies media, culture, psychology, and the relationship between trauma and lifelong suffering disagrees with your framing of this, so you're probably missing something. No doubt that I'm missing something. >They aren't. They're deciding what they sell. Limiting access can be form of it. Google removing something from its search is really being close to some kind of censorship. Google pushing one narration over other in its search index is very significant way of creating the "truth". Some people says that a lie repeated thousand times becomes a truth and I definitely believe that it's true to significant extent. >Sidebar curiosity: Do you know what "trigger" actually means, and does your minimization of it mean that you don't believe that PTSD is real or serious? I do believe that PTSD is real, but I'm not talking about trigger as of flashbacks.