6 ms·

There's a deep censorship vibe on this one. Seems like at the crux of this lawsuit, isn't that Amazon is selling products they're legally allowed to sell, it i

There's a deep censorship vibe on this one. Seems like at the crux of this lawsuit, isn't that Amazon is selling products they're legally allowed to sell, it is that Amazon is also selling a booklet with information that is readily available online telling people how to use that product in unintended (deadly) ways. HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? Should a company be liable for the free access of information? There's even some people in the comments already calling for new age restrictions on Amazon accounts for certain products, I wonder how long once that is implemented before certain localities pass laws restricting access to "unpure" materials like sex ed/safe sex? I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. Ironically I think if this lawsuit is successful on its merit, you could also sue arstechnica for promoting the same thing they're accusing Amazon of. That's the nature of censorship, nobody is really safe once you open those floodgates.

CPLX 4y ago
It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children. I think internet contrarianism has warped everyone’s brains into an unrecognizable state. The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling. The fact that HN readers are doing the same is incomprehensible. As a society we can stop companies from mixing chemicals that kill teenagers in minutes and instructions on how to do just that with standard household purchases. We can put safeguards around sales of chemicals like that and our societal ability to preserve self-expression will be fine when we do.
- semicolon_storm 4y ago
  Ingesting table salt or drinking soy sauce is also a method of suicide and has killed many children and adults. Plenty of items that have perfectly legitimate uses and which should remain 100% legal can have deadly effects if misused. You can try censoring the information on how to misuse the substances, but that's never going to be very successful.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I agree. The point that this article doesn't should be on addressing the underlying issue. We can ban this one method and another will take it's place. Ways of getting people help and possibly avoiding whatever scenarios are leading to this should be looked at.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  > It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children. Amazon sells millions of products that could, in fact, kill children. Just go to: Health & Household > Health Care > OTC Medications & Treatments That clearly isn't the issue at the center of this lawsuit, since if it were there are far lower hanging fruit. > The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling. Because once you do that it only emboldens additional lawsuits and calls for censorship. In effect Amazon would be admitting all future liability, every product that could kill a child (which, as I said, is millions) they're now liable for. > As a society we can stop [..] instructions on how to do just that You start with "this isn't censorship, this is access to chemicals" but end with "why can't we as a society censor this type of information?"
  - CPLX 4y ago
    We judge these things as a matter of degree. Like any heavy object could kill children, but some objects are more likely to do so than others. We decide how much protection to put around access to them by evaluating cost/benefit relationships. We use those tools of analysis decide that selling suicide kits as described in the article, even after learning of the consequences, is fucking insane and indefensible. We do that because we are rational members of society instead of autonomous algorithmic message board argument bots (or attorneys) who have developed a sociopathic disregard for the well being of others and basic common sense.
    - fuckstick 4y ago
      15 to 20 extra strength Tylenol can kill most children - and it’s used quite frequently in intentional attempts - literally 100s of times more often than sodium nitrite. Your argument has no merit.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I think you underestimate how easy it would be to walk into most stores and find something to kill yourself with, if you have the right information. Any pharmacy, hardware store, walmart type store, grocery store, etc.
- fuckstick 4y ago
  10 grams of Tylenol (so 20 extra strength, or just 15 arthritis strength pills) can cause enough liver toxicity to kill. Tylenol overdoses both intentional and unintentional dwarf this sodium nitrite nonsense scare bullshit by 1000s.
iancmceachern 4y ago
I dont think these two things are necessary connected. It's possible to restrict purchase/ownership of some products and not others. There are many localities where you can't buy booze or guns but can buy pork, and visa versa. It's not a "there coming for us" kind of thing. These suicide kit items in question could be controlled without the "floodgates" opening. This is a classic fearmongering argument. Don't do this reasonable thing that most folks agree is right because it will hypothetically result in some sort of unreasonable consequence when taken to an absurd level in an hypothetical argument.
josephcsible 4y ago
> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? Should a company be liable for the free access of information? I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals. And calling that "censorship" seems silly. Is it also censorship that kids aren't allowed to own guns, or that you're not allowed to own plutonium? > I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so?
- Someone1234 4y ago
  > I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals. Thus proposing a new system of age restrictions, which can be re-used for other things once they exist. > And calling that "censorship" seems silly. The lawsuit is asking Amazon to stop sharing information, or associating that information in particular ways, that is in fact censorship. > What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so? I'd call it an automated "Frequently purchased together" recommendation.
  - GoldenMonkey 4y ago
    Children do not have the kinds of rights you think they should have. And until they are adults, we protect them from harm. And society is obligated to not work against our societal norms. Amazon will lose this case and will make the necessary changes. Amazon continuously demonstrates a dirt bag mentality. Few employees last more than 6 months and they have such a bad reputation. And the more we know about there shady ways… the worse it gets. Because society values family and children more than ‘censorship concerns’.
Lightbody 4y ago
I think you’re making it more complicated that it actually is. I believe the case is specifically focusing on the promotion of the kits to underage children. As a society we have already embraced censorship for children. If we can count how on Amazon to not offer up R rated movies to children via Amazon Prime (which they dutifully do), it seems reasonable that we should expect (and sadly now demand) that they not promote combinations of products to children that are designed to lead to their death.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The difference is that one is obviously categorized, and the other has no categorization. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of items on Amazon that can kill. Even if we start a lost of possible harmful items, would it solve the issue in this case? How are minors buying anything in the interent without supervision? Were they even using an account marked as a minor?
  - nickelcitymario 4y ago
    Recommending a book that instructs you how to use these products in combination for the purpose of suicide is wrong. I’d argue selling and profiting from that kind of information is wrong, too. No one’s saying Amazon can’t sell these chemicals. But it’s dubious at best to defend selling the info, and it’s downright evil to recommend it. Yes, it’s their algorithm. But they tweak it all the time to catch issues like this. If they recommended Mein Kampf and white robes when you ordered rope, surely we’d all agree that would be wrong, even though those individual items are defendable. Recommending them in combination would be evil. Likewise, recommending guns and bullets alongside a book about mass shootings would be evil. I don’t see how this is a controversial position.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      I would think this information comes close to encouragement to suicide which is against the law in a lot of jurisdictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation
indymike 4y ago
> That's the nature of censorship Censorship does not involve the exchange of money for goods.
nineteen999 4y ago
> HN hates Amazon Are you joking? Amazon is one of the A's in FAANG, the mostly highly coveted pseudo-conglomerate to be employed by on HN. People trumpet their roles at FAANG every day here, and most of the rest fawn up to them non-stop. And that's not even getting started on the obsession with AWS here.
- kaashif 4y ago
  I don't know, whenever anyone on any forum posts "I'm at FAANG and I hate it, I want to die", it's always Amazon. Everyone I know with other options ignores Amazon recruiters. I don't think this is a niche opinion, though I wouldn't go as far as saying "HN hates Amazon". Hell, I don't even hate Amazon, I buy stuff there all the time.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? The most surprising thing about this is that the sensational journalists are getting a free pass. The journalists have now advertised this chemical to the world (including minors who read the news) far, far more than the little box on Amazon that shows related products. How many people knew that this chemical combined with another medication was used for suicide? Probably not many, until journalists decided that this anti-Amazon story was the next big thing. Now it seems like everyone who follows tech news or sees this scrolling through their social media feed has been informed about this combination of chemicals and how it is used for suicide. Amazon isn't the only place to buy this chemical, and I doubt the recommendation algorithm was the impetus for people searching for the chemical in the first place. The way this story is blowing up seems utterly dangerous in itself, yet most journalists aren't even bothering to try to hide the names of the chemicals. Amazon's recommendation algorithm didn't have any intent in this process, but all of these journalists broadcasting this information far and wide to boost their personal click rate certainly could have thought a little bit harder about what they were doing.
tacet 4y ago
>I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. It's a term commonly used in sucide forums for at least decade.
poodle4 4y ago

CPLX 4y ago

It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children. I think internet contrarianism has warped everyone’s brains into an unrecognizable state. The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling. The fact that HN readers are doing the same is incomprehensible. As a society we can stop companies from mixing chemicals that kill teenagers in minutes and instructions on how to do just that with standard household purchases. We can put safeguards around sales of chemicals like that and our societal ability to preserve self-expression will be fine when we do.

semicolon_storm 4y ago
Ingesting table salt or drinking soy sauce is also a method of suicide and has killed many children and adults. Plenty of items that have perfectly legitimate uses and which should remain 100% legal can have deadly effects if misused. You can try censoring the information on how to misuse the substances, but that's never going to be very successful.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I agree. The point that this article doesn't should be on addressing the underlying issue. We can ban this one method and another will take it's place. Ways of getting people help and possibly avoiding whatever scenarios are leading to this should be looked at.
Someone1234 4y ago
> It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children. Amazon sells millions of products that could, in fact, kill children. Just go to: Health & Household > Health Care > OTC Medications & Treatments That clearly isn't the issue at the center of this lawsuit, since if it were there are far lower hanging fruit. > The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling. Because once you do that it only emboldens additional lawsuits and calls for censorship. In effect Amazon would be admitting all future liability, every product that could kill a child (which, as I said, is millions) they're now liable for. > As a society we can stop [..] instructions on how to do just that You start with "this isn't censorship, this is access to chemicals" but end with "why can't we as a society censor this type of information?"
- CPLX 4y ago
  We judge these things as a matter of degree. Like any heavy object could kill children, but some objects are more likely to do so than others. We decide how much protection to put around access to them by evaluating cost/benefit relationships. We use those tools of analysis decide that selling suicide kits as described in the article, even after learning of the consequences, is fucking insane and indefensible. We do that because we are rational members of society instead of autonomous algorithmic message board argument bots (or attorneys) who have developed a sociopathic disregard for the well being of others and basic common sense.
  - fuckstick 4y ago
    15 to 20 extra strength Tylenol can kill most children - and it’s used quite frequently in intentional attempts - literally 100s of times more often than sodium nitrite. Your argument has no merit.
giantg2 4y ago
I think you underestimate how easy it would be to walk into most stores and find something to kill yourself with, if you have the right information. Any pharmacy, hardware store, walmart type store, grocery store, etc.
fuckstick 4y ago
10 grams of Tylenol (so 20 extra strength, or just 15 arthritis strength pills) can cause enough liver toxicity to kill. Tylenol overdoses both intentional and unintentional dwarf this sodium nitrite nonsense scare bullshit by 1000s.

iancmceachern 4y ago

I dont think these two things are necessary connected. It's possible to restrict purchase/ownership of some products and not others. There are many localities where you can't buy booze or guns but can buy pork, and visa versa. It's not a "there coming for us" kind of thing. These suicide kit items in question could be controlled without the "floodgates" opening. This is a classic fearmongering argument. Don't do this reasonable thing that most folks agree is right because it will hypothetically result in some sort of unreasonable consequence when taken to an absurd level in an hypothetical argument.

josephcsible 4y ago

> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? Should a company be liable for the free access of information? I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals. And calling that "censorship" seems silly. Is it also censorship that kids aren't allowed to own guns, or that you're not allowed to own plutonium? > I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so?

Someone1234 4y ago
> I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals. Thus proposing a new system of age restrictions, which can be re-used for other things once they exist. > And calling that "censorship" seems silly. The lawsuit is asking Amazon to stop sharing information, or associating that information in particular ways, that is in fact censorship. > What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so? I'd call it an automated "Frequently purchased together" recommendation.
- GoldenMonkey 4y ago
  Children do not have the kinds of rights you think they should have. And until they are adults, we protect them from harm. And society is obligated to not work against our societal norms. Amazon will lose this case and will make the necessary changes. Amazon continuously demonstrates a dirt bag mentality. Few employees last more than 6 months and they have such a bad reputation. And the more we know about there shady ways… the worse it gets. Because society values family and children more than ‘censorship concerns’.

Lightbody 4y ago

I think you’re making it more complicated that it actually is. I believe the case is specifically focusing on the promotion of the kits to underage children. As a society we have already embraced censorship for children. If we can count how on Amazon to not offer up R rated movies to children via Amazon Prime (which they dutifully do), it seems reasonable that we should expect (and sadly now demand) that they not promote combinations of products to children that are designed to lead to their death.

giantg2 4y ago
The difference is that one is obviously categorized, and the other has no categorization. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of items on Amazon that can kill. Even if we start a lost of possible harmful items, would it solve the issue in this case? How are minors buying anything in the interent without supervision? Were they even using an account marked as a minor?
- nickelcitymario 4y ago
  Recommending a book that instructs you how to use these products in combination for the purpose of suicide is wrong. I’d argue selling and profiting from that kind of information is wrong, too. No one’s saying Amazon can’t sell these chemicals. But it’s dubious at best to defend selling the info, and it’s downright evil to recommend it. Yes, it’s their algorithm. But they tweak it all the time to catch issues like this. If they recommended Mein Kampf and white robes when you ordered rope, surely we’d all agree that would be wrong, even though those individual items are defendable. Recommending them in combination would be evil. Likewise, recommending guns and bullets alongside a book about mass shootings would be evil. I don’t see how this is a controversial position.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I would think this information comes close to encouragement to suicide which is against the law in a lot of jurisdictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation

indymike 4y ago

> That's the nature of censorship Censorship does not involve the exchange of money for goods.

nineteen999 4y ago

> HN hates Amazon Are you joking? Amazon is one of the A's in FAANG, the mostly highly coveted pseudo-conglomerate to be employed by on HN. People trumpet their roles at FAANG every day here, and most of the rest fawn up to them non-stop. And that's not even getting started on the obsession with AWS here.

kaashif 4y ago
I don't know, whenever anyone on any forum posts "I'm at FAANG and I hate it, I want to die", it's always Amazon. Everyone I know with other options ignores Amazon recruiters. I don't think this is a niche opinion, though I wouldn't go as far as saying "HN hates Amazon". Hell, I don't even hate Amazon, I buy stuff there all the time.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? The most surprising thing about this is that the sensational journalists are getting a free pass. The journalists have now advertised this chemical to the world (including minors who read the news) far, far more than the little box on Amazon that shows related products. How many people knew that this chemical combined with another medication was used for suicide? Probably not many, until journalists decided that this anti-Amazon story was the next big thing. Now it seems like everyone who follows tech news or sees this scrolling through their social media feed has been informed about this combination of chemicals and how it is used for suicide. Amazon isn't the only place to buy this chemical, and I doubt the recommendation algorithm was the impetus for people searching for the chemical in the first place. The way this story is blowing up seems utterly dangerous in itself, yet most journalists aren't even bothering to try to hide the names of the chemicals. Amazon's recommendation algorithm didn't have any intent in this process, but all of these journalists broadcasting this information far and wide to boost their personal click rate certainly could have thought a little bit harder about what they were doing.

tacet 4y ago

>I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. It's a term commonly used in sucide forums for at least decade.

poodle4 4y ago