3 ms·

Is it censorship when your boss forbids you publishing your personal opinion as the official position of his company? It's funny reading the comments here but

Is it censorship when your boss forbids you publishing your personal opinion as the official position of his company? It's funny reading the comments here but has anyone considered that Bezos may in fact support Trump? Bezos is a billionaire and Harris seeks to target them to fix the deficit. Its just possible Bezos supports Trump and it makes economic sense too, though its terribly unfashionable to come out and say such a thing.

mandevil 2y ago
If all Bezos cared about was having lower taxes for billionaires he could have simply hired a bunch of people who believed in that and had them be the editorial board, and they would endorse whomever he wanted. The fact that he had the editorial board he had (1), which wrote up an endorsement of Harris several weeks ago for his approval, and then he suddenly decided it was better not to endorse at all? That fits cowardice much more closely than it does pure economic interest. This isn't government censorship, obviously, but do remember that the only point of the Editorial Board is to write opinion pieces and have them published in the paper. That is their entire job! They aren't reporters, they don't go out and ferret out news. They have opinions, and they write them out and get published in the paper. And they wrote out an endorsement of Harris, and suddenly it was announced (to the board only slightly before it was announced to the rest of the world, according to published reports) that they weren't going to endorse for President any more. That's a fact pattern that leads one strongly to Jeff Bezos' personal cowardice as the most parsimonious explanation. 1: At least before the resignations come in, I expect the board to be very different in a few weeks.
voltaireodactyl 2y ago
Yes. Censoring is an action, the power dynamic at play is not relevant to whether something is or is not censoring. What you’re asking is “is this specific act of censorship somehow immoral or illegal?” And the answer is no, as I expect you already believe. But it wasn’t censored for no reason, and it’s entirely reasonable to question the motives that led to this specific act of censorship.
EasyMark 2y ago
A newspaper isn't a "regular" business. There's a reason why the press has explicit protection in the Constitution. It is a special entity, and now Bezos has killed a 40 year tradition because he's afraid Trump will come after him if he wins. So this is likely a Hail Mary to try and save himself from potential imprisonment and fines from a Trump administration. I would have preferred they just come and support Trump if that's what Bezos wanted instead of waffling.
jdgoesmarching 2y ago
Yes, that is censorship. It used to be unpopular around here. Maybe you’re fine with it when an anointed shareholder does it, but that’s what it is. It’s a big deal that a major historic news organization’s editorial board is overruled by the owner, whether or not you agree with the decision.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- silexia 2y ago
  It is NOT censorship when the owner of a company decides what his company will and will not say. It IS censorship when the government squashes a protest again a possibly falsified election and sentences the protestors to decades in prison on trumped up charges.

mandevil 2y ago

If all Bezos cared about was having lower taxes for billionaires he could have simply hired a bunch of people who believed in that and had them be the editorial board, and they would endorse whomever he wanted. The fact that he had the editorial board he had (1), which wrote up an endorsement of Harris several weeks ago for his approval, and then he suddenly decided it was better not to endorse at all? That fits cowardice much more closely than it does pure economic interest. This isn't government censorship, obviously, but do remember that the only point of the Editorial Board is to write opinion pieces and have them published in the paper. That is their entire job! They aren't reporters, they don't go out and ferret out news. They have opinions, and they write them out and get published in the paper. And they wrote out an endorsement of Harris, and suddenly it was announced (to the board only slightly before it was announced to the rest of the world, according to published reports) that they weren't going to endorse for President any more. That's a fact pattern that leads one strongly to Jeff Bezos' personal cowardice as the most parsimonious explanation. 1: At least before the resignations come in, I expect the board to be very different in a few weeks.

voltaireodactyl 2y ago

Yes. Censoring is an action, the power dynamic at play is not relevant to whether something is or is not censoring. What you’re asking is “is this specific act of censorship somehow immoral or illegal?” And the answer is no, as I expect you already believe. But it wasn’t censored for no reason, and it’s entirely reasonable to question the motives that led to this specific act of censorship.

EasyMark 2y ago

A newspaper isn't a "regular" business. There's a reason why the press has explicit protection in the Constitution. It is a special entity, and now Bezos has killed a 40 year tradition because he's afraid Trump will come after him if he wins. So this is likely a Hail Mary to try and save himself from potential imprisonment and fines from a Trump administration. I would have preferred they just come and support Trump if that's what Bezos wanted instead of waffling.

jdgoesmarching 2y ago

Yes, that is censorship. It used to be unpopular around here. Maybe you’re fine with it when an anointed shareholder does it, but that’s what it is. It’s a big deal that a major historic news organization’s editorial board is overruled by the owner, whether or not you agree with the decision.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
silexia 2y ago
It is NOT censorship when the owner of a company decides what his company will and will not say. It IS censorship when the government squashes a protest again a possibly falsified election and sentences the protestors to decades in prison on trumped up charges.