Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurelRusswurm
Most people don't read TOSes at all. Or if they do, they read it one time. Or maybe only when you get told that you're breaking the rules. The TOS is not a legally binding contract, it is merely a set of rules that is unilaterally dictated. The dictator is within its rights to take its marbles and go home.
Something else to consider: Smashwords is not a publisher, but a distributor. Until now, Mark Corker has not attempted to perform any editorial function at all. Who has the right to censor publishers? Thought that was within the purview of government, not corporations.
|
You kind of have it backwards.
In the US, at least, where Smashwords is based, the Constitution all but bans the government from censoring except in very limited circumstances. Even in those cases where they have, it's often been challenged and the more liberal stance has ended up being taken most every time. Robert Maplethorpe shoved a whip handle up his rear and took a picture of it, and Cincinatti tried to ban it. Maplethorpe won.
Businesses, however, have every right to determine what they will and will not sell. Businesses may censor all day long. Walmart, for example, will not sell violent rap or death metal. When they do , they often censor the albums. They will not sell certain categories of books or magazines. While they have tons of Bibles at Walmarts, you will not see a single Koran.
This is what smashwords did in this case. Yes, paypal threatened them, but smashwords has chosen to do business with paypal, which means a compromise. Part of that compromise involves smashwords choosing to no longer do business with authors and readers who like certain categories of stories.
I researched this deeply, and I don't think I'll be linking in websites of bookstores that now DO get to sell authors who write incest, rape, and beastiality stories.. but I did find them. They don't use paypal, obviously. But they do exist.
In the end here, Smashwords has made a choice to censor instead of fight. They did so likely knowing well in advance that this was coming. For example, I am a member of a community known as "Furry." Paypal notified various artists in this community that drawing furs in "sexual" positions was known as beastiality. They started locking accounts well over a year and a half ago. Articles were written about it, paypal's TOS was linked, people went kinda crazy about it.. but in the end, the general internet response was "So what, they're furries, they probably are all humping their dogs." Everybody ignored it.
But , people missed something there. Paypal's terms of service have remained unchanged since that event. Nobody thought about asking "Hey, am _I_ breaking these rules?" Maybe if they did , then, companies like smashwords would have picked one of the numerous payment providers out there that don't ban anything.
Smashwords had a choice in this, and had one all along. The excuse that not everyone reads TOS's is great for users like you and me, but for someone that bases their entire income on it.. is a very poor business decision.
I blame Paypal for making their decision.
I blame Smashwords for capitulation when they and others had over a year to figure this out. This didn't start a month or two ago.