Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that pressure groups decide what those "free businesses" are allowed to support or even tolerate.

Does this line of argument apply to, say.... Left-wing groups that criticize Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Ms Fluke?

Was it wrong for advertisers to pull from Limbaugh's show as an expression of their disapproval, and desire for him to apologize and/or tone things down?

Was it wrong for students in the 90s to pressure colleges and universities to divest from companies that did business in South Africa, as a means of applying pressure to the apartheid regime?

Is it wrong to stop buying any type of book from Smashwords, or to cancel your PayPal account, as an expression of discontent with their current policies?

Withdrawal of business and boycotts are not a "problem," they are a perfectly normal and acceptable way of applying pressure on a company.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Paypal never said that they were following Visa or any other CC company's requirements. That was speculation by others, notably Mark Coker (Smashwords' CEO).

Visa's statement is fully consistent with Paypal's statement today, again https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2012/0...rtain-erotica/

Reuters article March 7:

PayPal said it was acting in part because banks and credit card companies it works with restrict such content, according to an email PayPal sent to Smashwords on February 24. Reuters obtained copies of the emails.

"Our banking partners and credit card associations have taken a very strict stance on this subject matter," PayPal said in the February 24 email. "Our relationships with the banking partners are absolutely critical in order to provide the online and mobile services we (offer) ... to our customers. Therefore, we have to remain in compliance with their rules, which prohibit content involving rape, bestiality or incest."

Am I misreading that?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Does this line of argument apply to, say.... Left-wing groups that criticize Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Ms Fluke?

Was it wrong for advertisers to pull from Limbaugh's show as an expression of their disapproval, and desire for him to apologize and/or tone things down?

(snip)

There's a "Rush Limbaugh" topic on the P & R forum.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Does this line of argument apply to, say.... Left-wing groups that criticize Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Ms Fluke?

Was it wrong for advertisers to pull from Limbaugh's show as an expression of their disapproval, and desire for him to apologize and/or tone things down?

Was it wrong for students in the 90s to pressure colleges and universities to divest from companies that did business in South Africa, as a means of applying pressure to the apartheid regime?

Is it wrong to stop buying any type of book from Smashwords, or to cancel your PayPal account, as an expression of discontent with their current policies?

Withdrawal of business and boycotts are not a "problem," they are a perfectly normal and acceptable way of applying pressure on a company.

If left wing pressure groups did work on Limbaugh's advertisers they did themselves a great disservice --- it would have been much better for the left if Rush would continue unabated with his rants. Every time Limbaugh opened his mouth Obama's rating went up.

As far as South Africa is concerned --- I don't think we would equate working to end Apartheid with trying to impose one's religious beliefs on others?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by TimW

Am I misreading that?

Assuming the email is genuine and the sender was properly informed, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by TimW

There's a "Rush Limbaugh" topic on the P & R forum.

The point is not about Limbaugh, his political positions or his choice of words.

It's that boycotts are not a "problem," as HansTW says. They are a tactic used by a wide variety of individuals and groups, from almost every point on the political spectrum.

If a company dislikes something that Limbaugh says, it's their right to refrain from advertising with him.

If you as an individual don't like something Limbaugh said, and a company whose products you use advertise on Limbaugh, it is within your rights to boycott the advertiser as long as they continue to patronize Limbaugh's show.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If left wing pressure groups did work on Limbaugh's advertisers they did themselves a great disservice...

They have used that kind of pressure, and it's well within their rights to do so -- regardless of whether you or I believe the use of that particular tactic in that particular instance is effective.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As far as South Africa is concerned --- I don't think we would equate working to end Apartheid with trying to impose one's religious beliefs on others?

It's not a matter of equating PayPal's or Smashwords' actions with "ending apartheid."

It's that economic boycotts are a perfectly valid tool to achieve a political end.

[Elfwreck]

Paypal may be backing down.:

Smashwords posted a quick note today (dated Mar 12, if it matters in the future; no option to link to indiv. updates): I met with PayPal this afternoon at their office in San Jose. They will soon announce revised content policies....
Details not yet available, but Smashwords is going back to its former content policies yaaay!

Bitmag talked to some people at the EFF, who have a "good feeling" about negotiations with PayPal: PayPal’s general counsel indicating that they would be “discussing it internally and might even be able to make a public statement in the next week.”

The EFF, she notes, specifically has requested that PayPal “update their policy so that this type of legal fiction would not be affected.”

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's not a matter of equating PayPal's or Smashwords' actions with "ending apartheid." It's that economic boycotts are a perfectly valid tool to achieve a political end.

You seem to be drawing a false parallel between boycotts by consumer advocacy groups and an unprecedented non-business-related threat against a book seller by a financial transaction company with which it has had a long-term relationship. Smashwords is certainly informed (as is Limbaugh) as to dealing with consumer boycotts. But no one expected the San Jose Inquisition.

Deep ties and crucial coding are involved in this situation, as people here have said repeatedly. To betray a partner at such a late stage amounts to a violation of trust. I understand your point about customers' right to express disapproval and the targeted company's right to comply or not, but this is not only a surprise attack but a very late demand about preexisting content on one business by another business. If PayPal intended to do this to bookstores and content delivery industries generally, they should have been honest about it from the beginning. If they'd done that, PayPal would be far less prominent on the web and in our thoughts today.

[gncosta99]

This really pisses me off.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Does this line of argument apply to, say.... Left-wing groups that criticize Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Ms Fluke?...

Getting and political. Let's stick to the issues between PayPal and Smashwords.

Originally Posted by TimW

...There's a "Rush Limbaugh" topic on the P & R forum.

Thank you. Anyone can go there and talk politics until they're blue in the face.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thank you. Anyone can go there and talk politics until they're blue in the face.

Uttering some names can quickly result in a flaming mess...kinda like "Voldemort!"

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by TimW

"Voldemort!"

flees

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimW

Uttering some names can quickly result in a flaming mess...kinda like "Voldemort!"

Not much of a Harry Potter fan. I had to Google that one!

[Redcard]

It does sound like this decision is getting un-made shortly.



So we will win.

Fiction is not real, and treating it as though it were is thought crime, and it sounds like Paypal and Smashwords realize this.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Redcard

It does sound like this decision is getting un-made shortly....

Yes, that Smashwords PayPal update for March 12 sounds promising.

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Paypal may be backing down.:

Smashwords posted a quick note today (dated Mar 12, if it matters in the future; no option to link to indiv. updates): I met with PayPal this afternoon at their office in San Jose. They will soon announce revised content policies....
Details not yet available, but Smashwords is going back to its former content policies yaaay!

Bitmag talked to some people at the EFF, who have a "good feeling" about negotiations with PayPal: PayPal’s general counsel indicating that they would be “discussing it internally and might even be able to make a public statement in the next week.”

The EFF, she notes, specifically has requested that PayPal “update their policy so that this type of legal fiction would not be affected.”

Good, maybe then I will consider re-opening my PayPal account.