Quote:
Originally Posted by dgatwood
I'm not saying that they're an enemy of free expression. I'm saying that the existence of any near-monopoly, no matter how benevolent it might be, is inherently a threat to free expression.
|
But Amazon isn't either.
The US publishing world is much much bigger than ebooks, and much bigger tgan trade publishing.
Amazon's total share of the total publishing market distribution channel is barely 15-20%. ($4-5B vs $27B).
That is hardly near-monopoly numbers.
And when it comes to free speech, the arenas where Amazon doesn't play (Textbooks, journals, newspapers, online...) are all more important to free speech than how many adult coloring books Amazon ships out to stressed-out customers.
Back when Penguin and Random House announced they were shacking up there was some squeaking from agents about how the merger would harm "free speech" by reducing the number of deep pocket bidders for titles. The feds laughed and rubber-stamped the deal because even though, combined, the randy penguin started out with nearly half of the trade publishing sector, the *relevant market* for antitrust purposes is the entirety of US publishing, not the narrow segment that relies on retailers and airport newstands.
And the number of publishers active is way too big for any single publisher (or distributor) *acting alone* to harm consumer interests. (Conspiracies are a different matter.)
As to pornography and other material Amazon refuses to distribute (how-to guides for bomb makers) there is no shortage of sources for any of that material so Amazon's refusal isn't hurting anybody.
People in publishing have this quaint idea that Amazon has some sort of obligation to carry their products, at Amazon expense, under *their* terms as if they were some public utility or a broadcaster utilizing public airwaves. They need to disabuse themselves of that silliness.
First of all, the freedom of speech debate is about *government* using its monopoly on force to stifle speech. Amazon is no government agency nor do they, to my knowledge, command an army any more than Apple, Microsoft, or any tech giant. Until they start sending out hit squads to kneecap Lee Child or Douglas Preston or beat up on LeGuin they won't even begin to be a threat to free speech. The mere fact that they continue to honor their contracts and carry even the titles of those three fools is ample evidence that Amazon has no interest in stifling "dissent".
One. More. Time: censorship is about government institutions.
Not about commerce.
Companies engaged in commerce have every right, even an obligation, to limit what they distribute. They are entitled to be as arbitrary as they choose to be and customers and suppliers are totally free to take their business elsewhere.