3 ms·

>No, the motive is ideology, not money. This way ensures almost universal replacement. It isn't an either/or situation. Seems likely they are motivated by bot

>No, the motive is ideology, not money. This way ensures almost universal replacement. It isn't an either/or situation. Seems likely they are motivated by both money and ideology. If it was purely money they could retroactively censor existing books without offering the original version at all (which would cost them money).

happymellon 4y ago
> If it was purely money they could retroactively censor existing books without offering the original version at all (which would cost them money). That doesn't make sense, how would that make them money? Secondly, as these are e-books, how would releasing copies of the originals cost them money?
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >That doesn't make sense, how would that make them money? They are retroactively altering/censoring the books that people have already purchased, and offering the original uncensored version as a new purchase. >Secondly, as these are e-books, how would releasing copies of the originals cost them money? They are not "releasing" copies of the originals, they are selling them for money. People who bought these books as originally written are now going to be forced to pay more money in order to revert their purchases to the original, uncorrupted version.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    > They are retroactively altering/censoring the books that people have already purchased, and offering the original uncensored version as a new purchase. But that wasn't what was said, unless it was a typo. > > If it was purely money they could retroactively censor existing books without offering the original version at all Implying that they wouldn't offer the originals if it was all about money. That was what I meant by "that doesn't make sense". It sounds like you agree so it was just miscommunication. > People who bought these books as originally written are now going to be forced to pay more money in order to revert their purchases to the original, uncorrupted version. You originally said it would cost the publishers money, which is what I questioned. But again, I think we agree and this is just a language barrier.

happymellon 4y ago

> If it was purely money they could retroactively censor existing books without offering the original version at all (which would cost them money). That doesn't make sense, how would that make them money? Secondly, as these are e-books, how would releasing copies of the originals cost them money?

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>That doesn't make sense, how would that make them money? They are retroactively altering/censoring the books that people have already purchased, and offering the original uncensored version as a new purchase. >Secondly, as these are e-books, how would releasing copies of the originals cost them money? They are not "releasing" copies of the originals, they are selling them for money. People who bought these books as originally written are now going to be forced to pay more money in order to revert their purchases to the original, uncorrupted version.
- happymellon 4y ago
  > They are retroactively altering/censoring the books that people have already purchased, and offering the original uncensored version as a new purchase. But that wasn't what was said, unless it was a typo. > > If it was purely money they could retroactively censor existing books without offering the original version at all Implying that they wouldn't offer the originals if it was all about money. That was what I meant by "that doesn't make sense". It sounds like you agree so it was just miscommunication. > People who bought these books as originally written are now going to be forced to pay more money in order to revert their purchases to the original, uncorrupted version. You originally said it would cost the publishers money, which is what I questioned. But again, I think we agree and this is just a language barrier.