3 ms·

> the internet has only lowered the barriers to entry for authors. It has lowered the barrier to get published, but not the barrier to reach a significant audi

by MikeUt 6y ago

> the internet has only lowered the barriers to entry for authors. It has lowered the barrier to get published, but not the barrier to reach a significant audience. > Just because a large portion of people choose to not patronize non Amazon website does not mean there is a problem of Amazon curating its inventory. Yes, it does. Now a single company acting as a hidden censor gets to decide which books and ideas can reach a significant audience, and which get effectively ignored. That's the great advancement in censorship - things aren't censored totally, just silently suppressed into irrelevance. Just because "no one owes anyone an audience" doesn't make this less of a problem. Perhaps if you were on the other side of the issue, you'd see the problem with Costco as well. You have a product to sell, but instead of hundreds of retailers to negotiate with to get your item on store shelves, and needing only a handful for your company to survive (and hence allowing your product to exist), there are 3-5. If they all say no, effectively no-one will get to use your product. You may still think it's fine, since they (as far as we know) probably filter mostly on price and quality. But what if they filtered on ideological grounds? What if none of them allowed you to sell contraceptives, or immodest clothing, or DRM-free electronics? Is it still not a problem, or is it merely less of a problem than the "men with guns force you to put an item on your shelves" solution you're implicitly comparing it with?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> It has lowered the barrier to get published, but not the barrier to reach a significant audience. How much less of a barrier is needed more than being able to type a few letters on a device in your pocket? An individual can make the pdf, share a Dropbox link, and there’s instant access to nearly 8 billion people. > You may still think it's fine, since they (as far as we know) probably filter mostly on price and quality. But what if they filtered on ideological grounds? What if none of them allowed you to sell contraceptives, or immodest clothing, or DRM-free electronics? Yes, a <insert religion> goods store filters based on ideological grounds and that is their right. > Is it still not a problem, or is it merely less of a problem than the "men with guns force you to put an item on your shelves" solution you're implicitly comparing it with? I don’t know what this means, but I was simply saying if you wanted to write some text, and get it in front of people, it has never been easier than today to make it accessible to the entire population of the world. The competition is tough, people have a lot of options for where they can choose to spend their time, so there is no guarantee of your thoughts being read. But that has nothing to do with Amazon, nor does Amazon restrict anyone’s ability to reach anyone else. Even in the case of physical products, whether it be printing a book, or inventing a device, you can make the product, make a website, and promote it to the entire world as a one man show, and ship it via the various shipping companies.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  Are you completely unable to distinguish between "it is theoretically possible" and "it is extremely difficult due to the dominance of a handful of giant companies"?
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    Complaining that it's very difficult for all 130 million books to get public attention is missing the whole point. Of course it's hard. It will always be hard. Moreover, the idea that there is a handful of gatekeepers is completely unremarkable to anyone who knows what a "gatekeeper" is. Yet we want gatekeepers because they make it easier, not harder for people to find books. It would not be any easier for anyone in a world without gatekeepers and a big pile of 130 million books sitting in front of everyone. None of this is interesting or subtle, and all but a handful of people are aware of these issues and find them banal, which you have mistakenly interpreted as meaning that people are unaware of these issues. We are aware and don't care. What we do care about is whether there are more barriers today than say, thirty years ago, and I think the answer is "there are fewer barriers" even though of course we still have gatekeepers and of course it is extremely difficult for almost all books to be well known. These are just basic applications of the pigeon-hole principle and are not worthy of any outrage or even any further commentary.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by MikeUt 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> It has lowered the barrier to get published, but not the barrier to reach a significant audience. How much less of a barrier is needed more than being able to type a few letters on a device in your pocket? An individual can make the pdf, share a Dropbox link, and there’s instant access to nearly 8 billion people. > You may still think it's fine, since they (as far as we know) probably filter mostly on price and quality. But what if they filtered on ideological grounds? What if none of them allowed you to sell contraceptives, or immodest clothing, or DRM-free electronics? Yes, a <insert religion> goods store filters based on ideological grounds and that is their right. > Is it still not a problem, or is it merely less of a problem than the "men with guns force you to put an item on your shelves" solution you're implicitly comparing it with? I don’t know what this means, but I was simply saying if you wanted to write some text, and get it in front of people, it has never been easier than today to make it accessible to the entire population of the world. The competition is tough, people have a lot of options for where they can choose to spend their time, so there is no guarantee of your thoughts being read. But that has nothing to do with Amazon, nor does Amazon restrict anyone’s ability to reach anyone else. Even in the case of physical products, whether it be printing a book, or inventing a device, you can make the product, make a website, and promote it to the entire world as a one man show, and ship it via the various shipping companies.

MikeUt 6y ago
Are you completely unable to distinguish between "it is theoretically possible" and "it is extremely difficult due to the dominance of a handful of giant companies"?
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  Complaining that it's very difficult for all 130 million books to get public attention is missing the whole point. Of course it's hard. It will always be hard. Moreover, the idea that there is a handful of gatekeepers is completely unremarkable to anyone who knows what a "gatekeeper" is. Yet we want gatekeepers because they make it easier, not harder for people to find books. It would not be any easier for anyone in a world without gatekeepers and a big pile of 130 million books sitting in front of everyone. None of this is interesting or subtle, and all but a handful of people are aware of these issues and find them banal, which you have mistakenly interpreted as meaning that people are unaware of these issues. We are aware and don't care. What we do care about is whether there are more barriers today than say, thirty years ago, and I think the answer is "there are fewer barriers" even though of course we still have gatekeepers and of course it is extremely difficult for almost all books to be well known. These are just basic applications of the pigeon-hole principle and are not worthy of any outrage or even any further commentary.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]