> 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

> 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 Underage children are already not allowed to have Amazon accounts (unless explicitly granted as a sub-account of their parents' account). How, exactly, would you propose that Amazon determine if the person viewing a page and entering credit card information and a mailing address is a minor? The only actual solution to this problem is to forbid selling of this specific product on Amazon, which I have no doubt is in process. Many chemicals and OTC medications have already disappeared from Amazon due to fears of abuse by minors. > t 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. There was no such intent in the recommendation algorithm. Did you know this combination of products could be used for suicide before it was blasted all over the internet by these news articles? I didn't, and I doubt anyone at Amazon was aware of it either (until now). Are you also holding the journalists to the same standard? These articles about "suicide kits" have been filling my social media feeds and news outlets for the past day. The number of minors being exposed to this information by news outlets has to be many orders of magnitude higher than the number of minors who ever saw this combination of "recommended items" on Amazon. Keep in mind that Amazon wasn't just showing this to random shoppers, you had to search for specific ingredients to begin with. Journalists, on the other hand, have been advertising this combination far and wide to everyone who just wants to read news.