Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[JJArgus]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The (fixed-line) phone company and power company are public utilities, with local monopolies. They do not have the same freedom to reject customers that other businesses would have.

The two credit card companies are, in effect, monopolies, as well. Certainly when they meet to decide the same criteria, the same moral standards, and the same laws they will order their bought and paid for politicians to enact to increase their profits.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by JJArgus

First of all, kudos to making me laugh at the suggestion bankers have any sense of morality.

PayPal is not a bank. They provide a service and are allowed to determine who they provide that service to.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Yes there are. There are other online payment processors than PayPal.

Agreed. PayPal is not the only game in town. Smashwords had the choice, and they chose to follow PayPal's demands.

[Redcard]

In the long run, this means that another company will form that will handle these kinds of stories, and perhaps if they do it better than smashwords, they will succeed.

I'm not too concerned about this.

[JJArgus]

Originally Posted by Redcard

In the long run, this means that another company will form that will handle these kinds of stories, and perhaps if they do it better than smashwords, they will succeed.

I'm not too concerned about this.

I think you've failed to understand the fundamental dynamics at play here. It's not Smashwords, or the other online retailers who have been ordered by Paypal to remove certain types of stories, and maybe it's not even Paypal. It's the credit card companies. And the barriers to entry into that business are simply too enormous to think someone is going to start up a new one for erotica. If that were possible the online porn industry would have already done it. But they haven't.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by JJArgus

I think you've failed to understand the fundamental dynamics at play here. It's not Smashwords, or the other online retailers who have been ordered by Paypal to remove certain types of stories, and maybe it's not even Paypal. It's the credit card companies. And the barriers to entry into that business are simply too enormous to think someone is going to start up a new one for erotica. If that were possible the online porn industry would have already done it. But they haven't.

That is what Paypal has said.

And that is not likely 100% true.

The problem with the online porn industry (which I know little about) setting up something in this case likely has more to do with the online porn industry being focused on video, and in multiple nations/states/etc. This is likely not a problem to them.

It'll get solved, likely by someone inventing some middle currency or "gift card/points" system.

[QuantumIguana]

We need a middleman who is blind to what is being sold, and limits itself to moving the money from the seller to the buyer. The middleman should be as blind to what is being sold as cash is. Big Brother isn't acceptable just because it isn't government.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

We need a middleman who is blind to what is being sold, and limits itself to moving the money from the seller to the buyer. The middleman should be as blind to what is being sold as cash is. Big Brother isn't acceptable just because it isn't government.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Brother behind all of this is the government. The banking system is heavily regulated, regulation which the government can use as a cudgel if banks don't do what they want even if the disapproved behavior is legal.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

We need a middleman who is blind to what is being sold, and limits itself to moving the money from the seller to the buyer. The middleman should be as blind to what is being sold as cash is. Big Brother isn't acceptable just because it isn't government.

Progress is all in the other direction. More and more controls and audit measures are being put in place to track the movement of money, in the name of fighting terrorism/crime, and reducing tax evasion.
If cash didn't exist, no government would invent it now, it is too dangerous.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Laridae

Then you are either terribly naive or totally depraved, sir. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find something that would totally gross you out! Are you really willing to defend the indefensible?

Let's not cling to empty platitudes here. The fact that it's difficult to know where to draw the line doesn't obviate the need to have one.

I am quite depraved, but some things do still gross me out. That doesn't mean I would want to deprive other people of reading them though. This sort of thing makes me think of the people who scribble out swearwords in library books, or tear out pages they don't like. They are just trying to enforce their warped idea of morality onto everyone else.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Progress is all in the other direction. More and more controls and audit measures are being put in place to track the movement of money, in the name of fighting terrorism/crime, and reducing tax evasion.
If cash didn't exist, no government would invent it now, it is too dangerous.

Have to agree with you on this. Try taking $10,000 in cash out of or into just about any country.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you explain why it is that a fictionalised account of murder are acceptable, but a fictionalised account of paedophilia is not? One might say "they are both despicable acts and should not be written about", and yet fiction depicting murder thrives. What do you consider to be the ethical difference between a fictionalised account of one crime and a fictionalised account of another? Why is it acceptable to read murder fiction, but "totally depraved" to read paedophilia fiction?

Doesn't a fair bit of murder fiction revolve around either justifying the murder or catching the murderer? (I could well be wrong about this, its not a genre I spend much time reading). While most "erotica" doesn't spend any time justifying the act or trying to catch the perpetrator.

--
Bill

[Barcey]

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.

Companies have to make decisions about the products they carry related to the service they are providing. When they step beyond the boundaries of the service they are providing and tell businesses how to run their business then I have a problem with it.

If a local variety store decides to not sell Playboy magazines because they hire young girls to run the cash register then I don't have a problem with it. If the power company refuses to provide them power unless they stop selling Playboy magazine then I have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with the scope of the service they are providing.

If PayPal wanted to market themselves as PuritanPal and as the payment provider for wholesome family entertainment then it's a different story. They would be limiting the scope of the services they provide subject to random audits of the products each vendor is selling. If a vendor signed up with them under those conditions then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Redcard]

Who really cares what it's about?

If no one is getting hurt, then no one is getting hurt. If you don't like to read these types of fiction, don't read them. It's very simple. Or at least it should be.

We cannot simultaneously argue that "there is a line not to be crossed in fiction" and "censorship is bad." The mere act of defining that line IS censorship. When you say "Do not cross that line in your stories", you are implying that "if you do, you will be stopped."

I'm really tired of this oppressive authoritarian process of thought control and nanny-statism. If you don't like something, do not partake in it. If it hurts no one, there is no reason to ask the government to stop it.

And remember, right now, we have a candidate for president in the US who believes ANY pornography (and he counts books or works with pre-marital sex as pornography) is the line that shall not be crossed. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of living in a world where everything is taken away because someone is offended. This is NOT Fahrenheit 451, and should not be.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Doesn't a fair bit of murder fiction revolve around either justifying the murder or catching the murderer? (I could well be wrong about this, its not a genre I spend much time reading). While most "erotica" doesn't spend any time justifying the act or trying to catch the perpetrator.

--
Bill

I think only when dealing with murder mystery/detective/crime fiction.

BUt there's a lot of fiction that just deals with murderers/serial killings/revenge murders, etc. Don't ask me for recs, they squick me out. But a few of my friends have read them. Pretty gross and bloodly, IMHO. But I don't try to stop others from reading them.

ETA: Also, there are sub-genres to erotica. Some cater to those who are into particular kinks, some cater to married couples who like to spice up their sex lives, some cater to people who are interested in exploring their sexuality, some cater to those who are looking for the true love of their lives...in which the story usually ends in marriage and family, etc (the list goes on and on).

[Yapyap]

Doesn't a fair bit of murder fiction revolve around either justifying the murder or catching the murderer? (I could well be wrong about this, its not a genre I spend much time reading). While most "erotica" doesn't spend any time justifying the act or trying to catch the perpetrator.

I think it's the "titillation" part that is being used as justification against allowing such "depraved" kinds of erotica.

And on the one hand, I can see the reasoning behind it: while incest, for example (never mind pseudo-incest), would probably involve adult characters, who are free to consent, other and "more gross" sexual fantasy material - rape, bestiality, paedophilia - involves at least one non-consenting party.

And in reality, involving real people (or animals), that would be illegal.

I'm not entirely sure who exactly is harmed in werewolf erotica, or erotic science fiction (aliens would be out too, yes? even humanoid aliens aren't humans, after all?), etc. And as said above, rape fantasy - and other fantasies - exist, and are probably more common than many people realise. Fiction, in writing, is often even considered a safe way for people to engage in those fantasies, I believe.

Re: underage sex in fiction... one thing I wonder about - what exactly is illegal or immoral about erotica featuring, say, 17-year-old characters having consensual sex (especially if the work has been written by someone in a country where 17-year-olds can legally have sex, featuring fictional characters of that nationality - teenagers doing what's legal for them)? That's hardly paedophilia or illegal, surely?

(Disclaimer: I neither read nor write erotica of any sort. I don't even read romance. It's not my cup of tea. I do, however, read murder mysteries - and I believe that some of them end up showing the killer in a positive, sympathetic light. We can and do end up feeling for the killer. So it's a bit puzzling to me why that is somehow far more acceptable than erotica featuring consenting shapeshifters or werewolves (even if they consent first and turn into animal shape later), consenting step-siblings or consenting 17-year-olds in a country where real 17-year-olds are free to have sex with whomever they want.)