Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by sabredog

What makes this really hypocritical is that there are dodgy deals passing through Paypal on a daily basis, without hinderance.

That's not hypocrisy, it's inconsistency. Unless you discard all standards, which some people here want but isn't realistic, there always will be inconsistencies.

This may be an example of PayPal going a bit in the direction of avoiding other, to use your phrase, dodgy deals:

As a result of the jump in traffic PayPal, the company that RapidGator used to process any payments in relation to the site, took notice . . .

“PayPal just informed us that our PayPal account is closed due to the high risks of processing file sharing payments,” RapidGator announced. According to the site’s operators this may very well be the end of the file-sharing industry.

Do I believe that last sentence? Na, but I can't resist including it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But why aren't you equally outraged that Smashwords can refuse certain material? Why do you think it's OK for Smashwords to have certain standards and rules, but not PayPal? It seems logically inconsistent to me. Smashwords gets to use its discretion about its business practices, but you are upset when PayPal does.

You are seriously asking why I am not equally outraged about Smashwords? Why aren't you crawling up the wall yourself that Smashwords already made use of censorship before Paypal stepped in? They did not make new guidelines, they had to add to them. Except now that Smashwords is established, changing the rules in such a way is economical suicide. Paypal should not refuse ALL business with Smashwords, but have those questionable books unable to purchase through Paypal and leaving the rest alone. They would be temporary out of stock until they can find an alternative form of payment. On such a short notice there was no choice though - and the fact that all books would have been affected.

If Smashwords missed something in the rules of Paypal, than that would have been different. They could have apologized, take the books down, and say that they will look for an alternative. Then switch, disallow Paypal, and put the books back. Hopefully that is exactly what is going to happen.

If I wanted to open an adult book store and disallow anything that does not have sex in it, then it would by no means be considered censorship.

[emellaich]

I'm not sure that you can call this censorship. You can write any book you want. You can (self) publish any book you want. You just can't use paypal to pay for it. That is their right.

It's similar to the folks who said WalMart was censoring playboy because they wouldn't carry the magazine. You can't force an organization to sell what you want.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Paypal should not refuse ALL business with Smashwords, but have those questionable books unable to purchase through Paypal and leaving the rest alone.

That's not how it works.

Technically that wouldn't be too difficult to implement. However, Paypal is saying "as long as your company is selling content with x y and z, we will not do business with you." (I.e. the claims that it's a chargeback issue are probably incorrect.)

PayPal's time frame was very aggressive, and that's definitely PayPal's fault, but otherwise it's well within their rights to conduct business this way.

Smashwords almost certainly had the option to drop PayPal, even on short notice. They've also had a few years to adopt other payment processors, such as Google Checkout or credit cards. If PayPal truly has them over a barrel, that's their own fault.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

It's perfectly acceptable for me not to get involved in other people's lives trying to tell them what to read. It's ridiculous and hypocritical.

But it is acceptable for PayPal to do business with a company that sells content to which they object?

It's not "hypocritical" for PayPal to decide they don't want to do business with a company that sells x y and z; in enforcing this policy, they aren't violating the ethical standards they're attempting to enforce.

PayPal doesn't want to deal with vendors of certain specific types of content, and shouldn't have to -- no more than you should be required to patronize the services of a company whose policies you don't like.

Further, Smashwords has a variety of choices for payment processing, and it's their own fault if they are so utterly dependent on PayPal that this requirement constitutes force rather than suasion.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

As long as it's legal merchandise, yes.

They're in the business of moving money from one account to another. That's it. They're not even the source of the money, since they take from other people's bank accounts and credit cards.

They need to stay out of the rest of it.

+1

It is not their place to judge the merchandise. I am using their service merely to transfer funds; that's all they should be concerned with because that's the extent of their involvement in my transactions. What the retailer sells - as long as it is legal under its country's laws - and what I purchase - ditto - is none of their business.

This is just another example of those with power misusing it to try to shape the world in their image.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

That's not hypocrisy, it's inconsistency. Unless you discard all standards, which some people here want but isn't realistic, there always will be inconsistencies.

I do not see it that way really, though it is certainly a appropriate assessment.

I hate hypocrisy in any form. Hypocrisy is;

A pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

To me, that sums up Paypal at current.

You simply do not make a big show of demanding an ethical business regime from your business clientele when you are not conducting that same standard of ethics on a daily basis yourself.

THAT smacks of hypocrisy...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

But it is acceptable for PayPal to do business with a company that sells content to which they object?

It's not "hypocritical" for PayPal to decide they don't want to do business with a company that sells x y and z; in enforcing this policy, they aren't violating the ethical standards they're attempting to enforce.

PayPal doesn't want to deal with vendors of certain specific types of content, and shouldn't have to -- no more than you should be required to patronize the services of a company whose policies you don't like.

Further, Smashwords has a variety of choices for payment processing, and it's their own fault if they are so utterly dependent on PayPal that this requirement constitutes force rather than suasion.

If paypal wanted to be the moral police of the internet...they should have started the way they planned to continue. And they didn't. And this is just a form of bullying.

I always give people and companies that claim one thing and do another the side eye.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I do not see it that way really, though it is certainly a appropriate assessment.

I hate hypocrisy in any form. Hypocrisy is;



To me, that sums up Paypal at current.

You simply do not make a big show of demanding an ethical business regime from your business clientele when you are not conducting that same standard of ethics on a daily basis yourself.

THAT smacks of hypocrisy...

Agreed.

[DiapDealer]

And again... why are so many people under the impression that "they're within their rights" should equal "end of discussion?" I'm perfectly capable of understanding that they have every right to do what they're doing while simultaneously thinking it sucks canal water.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And again... why are so many people under the impression that "they're within their rights" should equal "end of discussion?"

So many? I missed that. Many people in this thread?

I for one certainly think they are within their rights, and also think there they should facilitate payments for works by authors with a wide range of opinions and approaches.

To fairly judge PayPal's action, I would have to read the book(s) in question.

Since, as far as I know, none of us has done that, all we can discuss is whether there is any possible book that would be so repugnant to humane values that it is a good idea for PayPal to decline to help fund it. I'd say that, yes, I can imagine such.

Question for those who are now boycotting PayPal. Are you also boycotting your public library, whose standards of what's acceptable are even narrower?

[Laridae]

Let's talk specifics!
Has everyone read the original article?
Exactly which banned acts do you think should be acceptable to describe in publicly available literature and why?

Surely people accept that some subjects, like kiddie porn, for example, are obviously so objectionable and reprehensible that they are not acceptable under any conditions? If yes then that means a general acceptance of a level of "censorshop" over the basest interests of a certain portion of the population. QED.

Yes, I understand the argument about the slippery slope and all that, but based on the Specifics of this case, it seems to me the bar is set pretty low and no-where near banning anything of any redeeming social value.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Subject matter alone can't determine content in literature. There are people who condemn Lolita as being food for pedophiles, and passages from Andrew Vachs, whose novels are supposed to champion the fight against child trafficking, are said to be savored by the very people Vachs dedicated his career to hunting down.

And then there's the work of William Burroughs and Dennis Cooper.

I-know-it-when-I-see-it is often an excuse for myopia and literal-mindedness.

There are enough real cases of pedophilia to prosecute. Let's not muddy the issue by worrying about the fates of fictional characters.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Subject matter alone can't determine content in literature. There are people who condemn Lolita as being food for pedophiles, and passages from Andrew Vachs, whose novels are supposed to champion the fight against child trafficking, are said to be savored by the very people Vachs dedicated his career to hunting down.

And then there's the work of William Burroughs and Dennis Cooper.

I-know-it-when-I-see-it is often an excuse for myopia and literal-mindedness.

There are enough real cases of pedophilia to prosecute. Let's not muddy the issue by worrying about the fates of fictional characters.

I couldn't agree more! Another case of pressure groups trying to impose their morals on others. If there is something illegal going on, prosecute. If not, then leave adults alone to read what they want to read.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

To fairly judge PayPal's action, I would have to read the book(s) in question.

Since, as far as I know, none of us has done that, all we can discuss is whether there is any possible book that would be so repugnant to humane values that it is a good idea for PayPal to decline to help fund it. I'd say that, yes, I can imagine such.

You don't have to read the books. Saying that you have not and that you assume nobody else here also has not makes it clear to me that you don't see the danger. I could even go so far and say that you would support Paypal even more after reading the books you disapprove of. Any book that is so bad to society that it needs to be banned will get banned. Except that would be done by the government in the real legal meaning of censorship, wether it be banned to sell, banned to own, banned to distribute, banned to sell to minors or any other form thereof.

Where do you draw the line? Paypal gets away with this, what is next? No more erotica at all! Fine no problem, not on my reading list. No more drugs! Fine, not on my reading list. Then no more smoking in books! Fine, whatever, I don't smoke anyway. You start to get what is going on?

Be thankful we do not (in the USA) live in a dictatorship like that. Do we have all freedom we want? Of course not, but then I do not want to live in an anarchy. We do have freedom of speech. That people in this thread pull out of Paypal is a great way of showing disapproval. They see what is going on, even if their reading list might not be in danger (yet).