4 ms·

I think it's socially pathological to appeal to Amazon (the tweets shown) to remove something offensive or distateful. Demanding intervention by random intermed

I think it's socially pathological to appeal to Amazon (the tweets shown) to remove something offensive or distateful. Demanding intervention by random intermediaries simply sets the precedent that Amazon's role is to censor, which everyone hates the rest of the year. I think it's more responsible and effective to financially boycott something like this, assuming of course that you don't find this ironic, if dark (the original "keep calm and carry on" could be seen as promoting sheepish obedience, which I personally find genuinely offensive rather than merely distasteful...).

arrrg 14y ago
Wha…? Sorry, if Amazon does disgusting shit like sell this (and it is disgusting shit, no matter how it was created) Amazon deserves to be scolded for it. Nothing to do with censorship. Boycotts are ineffective and most certainly wouldn’t work here. What’s wrong with making clear that something someone does is disgusting and they should stop it? That’s quite simple.
- andrewguenther 14y ago
  Except it has everything to do with censorship. Amazon cannot hand check every item that is put up for sale, it is infeasible and a waste of time. But if Amazon were to respond to customer concerns by censoring offensive content, that makes much more sense.
- powertower 14y ago
  > Sorry, if Amazon does disgusting shit like sell this (and it is disgusting shit, no matter how it was created) Amazon deserves to be scolded for it. Nothing to do with censorship. There is a Mark Twain book with the word ni-ger printed in it. You better do something about it quick. It's offensive.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  Amazon is a retail interface for the original seller. If we pull Amazon's levers, causing them to filter (as opposed to directing criticism at the origin), Amazon, a vast-reaching intermediary, becomes an explicit and expected tool for anyone who has the influence (social, monetary, etc) to manipulate it, and it can quickly become the norm in the same way that ISPs are quick to become copyright/content police in the absence of effective safe-harbor rights. In not liking something, it's OK to be loud about it, but Amazon is the wrong target IMHO, and by directly targeting/shaming Amazon, the long-term result is, in addition to the immediate effect of cutting off the originator, a warping of accountability in ways that seem to me to increase the probability of censorship (and anti-competition, etc). For example, a likely next step for Amazon would be to implement pre-screening, by a human, of all products before listing. Net neutrality, and good government, and fair markets, all depend on the most direct forms of accountability available, IMHO. Again, I can certainly understand how the shirt could be offensive.
- geuis 14y ago
  You don't understand how this all works, apparently. Amazon is, for all intents and purposes, a machine. It takes inputs, does algorithmic work, and produces output (a marketplace). Some of the inputs, such as this case, are other machines. Yes, next you'll argue that I'm wrong and that Amazon is run by people. Sure. Most of their workforce is in the warehouses, and that's gradually being reduced by machine labor. There's a small percent of people that do programming, make broad business decisions, and collect profits. The human attention pool for policing every input and output of the machine is cosmologically small. What's their other major businesses? EC2, S3, etc. Someone sets of an EC2 micro instance VPN for tor to use Silk Road or illegal porn. Amazon is at fault? Suppose I publish a book wih a hypothesis that the Nazi killing of 6 million Jews helped the gene pool of Europe and resulted in over 60 years of peace. Does Amazon get to remove that because its illegal in Germany but legal in the US? Just because something is offensive to you, it's not to others. I actually found some irony in the rape tshirt. I might wear it once as a gag to a party with close friends that get the joke, but that would be it. Others would wear it as a "fuck the world" statement. Others actually like rape fantasies. Summary: Amazon is a colossal machine. It is unfair and impractical to censor the machine marketplace. Keep your opinions to yourself, because what you find offensive is funny to others.
- superuser2 14y ago
  If Adobe does disgusting shit like making tools that let people make this? What about if MasterCard does disgusting shit like process payments for this? If UPS does disgusting shit like ship this? If Exxon does disgusting shit like sell UPS the fuel to ship this? Your argument has everything to do with censorship. You're saying it was Amazon's responsibility to prevent people from using the services it provides for "disgusting" purposes. Amazon providing the e-commerce API was no different in the mind of any person or organization from Adobe selling the t-shirt seller Photoshop, MasterCard handling the payment, UPS shipping the product, Exxon selling the the fuel, etc.
Klinky 14y ago
People can complain to whoever they want. If you don't like Amazon censoring based on complaints, go ahead and do one of your silent financial boycotts. Let us know how effective it is.
soneca 14y ago
Wha.. ? (2) People may use two things to demonstrate that they disagree with this: exit and voice^. Why just one is responsible and the other is "socially pathological" (?!?!) I can't even imagine how, in this particular case, boycott(exit) would be more effective than voice! ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
pavel_lishin 14y ago
> I think it's more responsible and effective to financially boycott something like this How do I boycott a tiny company I've never heard of and whose products I would never buy?
- GuiA 14y ago
  You keep not buying their products.
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    And people tell me I've never done anything to improve the world.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  I think it can still be appropriate to criticize the original source (even publicly), without appealing to the intermediary. ("Amazon is allowing sellers to sell t-shirts promoting rape!"... Rather, Amazon is simply allowing sellers to sell. The products are either legal or illegal. If they are legal, Amazon would be discriminating by not allowing the seller to sell their goods...)
- derefr 14y ago
  > How do I boycott a tiny company I've never heard of and whose products I would never buy? This is one reason companies are supposed to go public: you could just short their stock, and ask everyone else to do the same.
ams6110 14y ago
The entire reaction to all of this does illustrate why Apple does stuff like filter out "barely legal teens" from their services. They'd much rather deal with the tiny minority of people who are upset by that than they would an explosion of self-righteous outrage all over Twitter and Facebook.

arrrg 14y ago

Wha…? Sorry, if Amazon does disgusting shit like sell this (and it is disgusting shit, no matter how it was created) Amazon deserves to be scolded for it. Nothing to do with censorship. Boycotts are ineffective and most certainly wouldn’t work here. What’s wrong with making clear that something someone does is disgusting and they should stop it? That’s quite simple.

andrewguenther 14y ago
Except it has everything to do with censorship. Amazon cannot hand check every item that is put up for sale, it is infeasible and a waste of time. But if Amazon were to respond to customer concerns by censoring offensive content, that makes much more sense.
powertower 14y ago
> Sorry, if Amazon does disgusting shit like sell this (and it is disgusting shit, no matter how it was created) Amazon deserves to be scolded for it. Nothing to do with censorship. There is a Mark Twain book with the word ni-ger printed in it. You better do something about it quick. It's offensive.
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
Amazon is a retail interface for the original seller. If we pull Amazon's levers, causing them to filter (as opposed to directing criticism at the origin), Amazon, a vast-reaching intermediary, becomes an explicit and expected tool for anyone who has the influence (social, monetary, etc) to manipulate it, and it can quickly become the norm in the same way that ISPs are quick to become copyright/content police in the absence of effective safe-harbor rights. In not liking something, it's OK to be loud about it, but Amazon is the wrong target IMHO, and by directly targeting/shaming Amazon, the long-term result is, in addition to the immediate effect of cutting off the originator, a warping of accountability in ways that seem to me to increase the probability of censorship (and anti-competition, etc). For example, a likely next step for Amazon would be to implement pre-screening, by a human, of all products before listing. Net neutrality, and good government, and fair markets, all depend on the most direct forms of accountability available, IMHO. Again, I can certainly understand how the shirt could be offensive.
geuis 14y ago
You don't understand how this all works, apparently. Amazon is, for all intents and purposes, a machine. It takes inputs, does algorithmic work, and produces output (a marketplace). Some of the inputs, such as this case, are other machines. Yes, next you'll argue that I'm wrong and that Amazon is run by people. Sure. Most of their workforce is in the warehouses, and that's gradually being reduced by machine labor. There's a small percent of people that do programming, make broad business decisions, and collect profits. The human attention pool for policing every input and output of the machine is cosmologically small. What's their other major businesses? EC2, S3, etc. Someone sets of an EC2 micro instance VPN for tor to use Silk Road or illegal porn. Amazon is at fault? Suppose I publish a book wih a hypothesis that the Nazi killing of 6 million Jews helped the gene pool of Europe and resulted in over 60 years of peace. Does Amazon get to remove that because its illegal in Germany but legal in the US? Just because something is offensive to you, it's not to others. I actually found some irony in the rape tshirt. I might wear it once as a gag to a party with close friends that get the joke, but that would be it. Others would wear it as a "fuck the world" statement. Others actually like rape fantasies. Summary: Amazon is a colossal machine. It is unfair and impractical to censor the machine marketplace. Keep your opinions to yourself, because what you find offensive is funny to others.
superuser2 14y ago
If Adobe does disgusting shit like making tools that let people make this? What about if MasterCard does disgusting shit like process payments for this? If UPS does disgusting shit like ship this? If Exxon does disgusting shit like sell UPS the fuel to ship this? Your argument has everything to do with censorship. You're saying it was Amazon's responsibility to prevent people from using the services it provides for "disgusting" purposes. Amazon providing the e-commerce API was no different in the mind of any person or organization from Adobe selling the t-shirt seller Photoshop, MasterCard handling the payment, UPS shipping the product, Exxon selling the the fuel, etc.

Klinky 14y ago

People can complain to whoever they want. If you don't like Amazon censoring based on complaints, go ahead and do one of your silent financial boycotts. Let us know how effective it is.

soneca 14y ago

Wha.. ? (2) People may use two things to demonstrate that they disagree with this: exit and voice^. Why just one is responsible and the other is "socially pathological" (?!?!) I can't even imagine how, in this particular case, boycott(exit) would be more effective than voice! ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

pavel_lishin 14y ago

> I think it's more responsible and effective to financially boycott something like this How do I boycott a tiny company I've never heard of and whose products I would never buy?

GuiA 14y ago
You keep not buying their products.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  And people tell me I've never done anything to improve the world.
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
I think it can still be appropriate to criticize the original source (even publicly), without appealing to the intermediary. ("Amazon is allowing sellers to sell t-shirts promoting rape!"... Rather, Amazon is simply allowing sellers to sell. The products are either legal or illegal. If they are legal, Amazon would be discriminating by not allowing the seller to sell their goods...)
derefr 14y ago
> How do I boycott a tiny company I've never heard of and whose products I would never buy? This is one reason companies are supposed to go public: you could just short their stock, and ask everyone else to do the same.

ams6110 14y ago

The entire reaction to all of this does illustrate why Apple does stuff like filter out "barely legal teens" from their services. They'd much rather deal with the tiny minority of people who are upset by that than they would an explosion of self-righteous outrage all over Twitter and Facebook.