Amazon Censorship Expands

[AGB]

Ha ha! Excellent!

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

While your argument is technically correct, I think it might be a a type of strawman in that it can be applied to Any argument, which means we can't predict anything. If I said the sun will rise tomorrow on earth, you could say aliens could blow up the planet, and no one could argue against that. I hate to Godwin the tread by dragging Hitler into it, but in your Nazi example if I argue that history will look down on the Nazis, you could say that the US could get taken over by Neo-Nazis and approve of what Hitler did. You can't disprove a negative. I think the onus is on you to support your claim that the US is moving toward a more fascist regime that supports book banning. So far no democracy I know supports it? If you compare yourself to china, then anything goes, you can sell organs from dissidents on the black market there.

There's nothing wrong with speculating based on current perceived trends. However, if you look at all of history, you'll see that things don't always go in a strait line. I guess it's just the certainty you exhibit.

I said Marx first made social divination scientific. Of course, Marx got it from Hegel, as Kali said.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Sorry, but I call BS.

The biggest dust-up was well over a year ago, due to a minor change in one of the databases; no books were pulled and the error was quickly corrected.

You're wrong about that. The actual coding might have been minor but it created a sweeping change that affected nearly 60,000 gay-oriented books while leaving very similar straight-oriented titles alone and anti-gay titles alone. You can shout BS all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

As to what actually happened, Amazon's official explanation was that it was "ham-fisted" and a "glitch," while leaving "glitch" officially unexplained. How can a "glitch" be ham-fisted? That attribute requires human judgment and action. Someone somewhere, widely reported to be someone in France, changed the classification of gay material ONLY, causing it to drop off a whole lot of lists. How does a "glitch" target material so specifically? I don't buy it.

And as for being quickly corrected, the problem first popped up in February, it wasn't fixed until almost the middle of April, despite complaints. It wasn't until there was an international outcry that something was done.

n this case, Amazon pulled a book of straight "incest erotica" a week or two ago, as well as a book featuring pedophilia. You're clearly unaware of the recent context -- both in terms of how absolutely minor this is, and how the few similar isolated incidents are not focusing on gay erotica.

You're completely wrong, and overly presumptuous. I'm very well aware of recent events. So, don't assume you tell me what I know and what I don't. Further, you may personally consider this a minor incident. I do not.

And, of course, there is an absolute ton of gay erotica and other pro-gay books that are still available, not to mention extending health insurance benefits to domestic partners.

Referring to this incident as evidence of a pattern of anti-gay discrimination is, to put it mildly, absurdly hyperbolic and excessively sensitive.

Which means exactly jack-squat regarding this particular case. And, I never said that Amazon was an anti-gay company, as you seem to be implying. I said this isn't the first time gay material has been affected while similar straight material was left alone. That is completely true. You can wave your hands and pass it off as no big deal, I don't choose to do so.

Finally, I'll just leave your insulting language alone to speak for you.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Again, you're doing a surface reading without understanding the historical context or theological implications. Jewish and Christian people have been commenting on this for thousands of years. Have you ever read any of it?

Oh, I've read a little bit, here and there. But if you're interested in providing me with a fuller explanation as to why the text doesn't mean what it says, I'll be happy to start a separate thread rather than derail this one.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

While your argument is technically correct, I think it might be a a type of strawman in that it can be applied to Any argument, which means we can't predict anything.

Incorrect.

You are making an explicit statement that certain historical trends and revisions of ethical systems are essentially inevitable. I am not twisting your positions into ones you don't hold and ascribing them to you, which is how the "straw man" fallacy functions.

Nor am I saying that "all predictions are impossible," rather that it is obvious that extenuating circumstances routinely disrupt what seems to be a "historic inevitability." Who predicted the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and the world war that resulted? Who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? The rise of China as a quasi-capitalist powerhouse? The appearance of Al-Qaeda and international Islamist terrorism? The fall of Rome, the rise of Christianity, the appearance and spread of Islam?

On the flip side: In the 70s, Japan was regarded as a mortal threat to American industrial pre-eminence. The US economy subsequently boomed while Japan suffered from an extended deflationary cycle that still afflicts their economy. Or in ancient times, the divided Greek city-states seemed doomed in the face of Darius' overwhelming military might, yet the Persians were driven out of Greece in the end. And surely, many empires presumed they would "inevitably" persist far longer than they actually did.

Trust me, we could sit here all day and rattle off failed predictions and massive surprises throughout recorded history.

History is usually only "predictable" in hindsight.

Originally Posted by eppythacher

If I said the sun will rise tomorrow on earth, you could say aliens could blow up the planet, and no one could argue against that.

True. However, my examples are nowhere near as extreme or outlandish, and numerous examples are drawn from history.

Originally Posted by eppythacher

You can't disprove a negative. I think the onus is on you to support your claim that the US is moving toward a more fascist regime that supports book banning.

See, that is a straw man argument.

I am not stating that the US is going to turn into a totalitarian state. My point is that because you cannot predict the future, it is impossible to establish ethical guidelines based upon presumptions about the moral guidelines that will be established by a future society.

The evidence is abundant that history is not predictable, nor are social attitudes.

More importantly, if you index your ethical premises to an unknown future date, what are the ethical premises that the Future People will bring to bear? Won't they in turn be obligated to guess what morals the Future Future People will hold? How long in the future should we look -- 50 years, 100 years, 200 years? The very idea either turns into an infinite regress or a series of moving targets, each less predictable than the last.

Last but not least, why should I care about a future judgment? I'll be dead and buried by the time such an era rolls around. Do I really need to concern myself with being judged by people who don't yet exist, and whose moral principles are a huge question mark?

I recommend you stick with contemporary ethical principles, rather than grasp at an illusory future.

[nguirado]

Wow. Kali, that was an excellent post. A forum work of art. Eppythacher, you did well also.

[Fastolfe]

Has anybody noticed that censorship doesn't seem to apply to certain books at Amazon?

I'm not really surprised, since the book's content is really just a bad (if accurate) political autobiography, but the fact that cheap smut is pulled out, and this 85 year old controversial book isn't actually reveals a lot about the sort of stance a company like Amazon needs to take to operate in modern America: censor pornography to please puritans, and sell Nazi literature to avoid being accused of trampling on the 1st amendment.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Welcome Aboard Mr Ploppy.

Do I get a badge?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Fastolfe

Has anybody noticed that censorship doesn't seem to apply to certain books at Amazon?
...

And not the Romances either.

full of illicit explicit sex and rape and violence...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Do I get a badge?

No, but now I have someone to talk to.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Phogg

But people promoting sexual violence have a right to force their views upon the public. How dare any business owner not peddle their screeds?

Power to the people! But only (evidently) the people who wish to promote rape and pedophelia. Those who don't want to sell that crud are clearly evil Nazis. Didn't you get the memo?

And there I was thinking that the distribution of other peoples' ideas were the very job of a bookseller. Whether I prefer to read Marx or Ayn Rand, St. Augustine or Dawkins, a collection of sermons or something sexually tintillating - I expect the bookseller to get me the book, instead of judging the book unasked for on my behalf.
I also wasn't aware of the fact that this book installed itself in a clandestine way like a rootkit on Peoples' kindles, popping up unasked when the owner wants to access a book of devout prayer.

[elcreative]

Strange idea... some bookshops may distribute other peoples' ideas but none of them do so for everything... try looking at German laws relating to political material and many other countries on Holocaust denial together with countries' that ban huge amounts of Western books.

Then there are the specialist shops... I worked at and ran a specialist SF&F shop for a number of years where we'd never stock such items (except some of Rand's fiction) because our customers wouldn't buy it... would you have forced us to stock other material because we shouldn't judge it as unsuitable for our shop.

Actually, the "very job" of a bookseller, is to make a profit and stay in business... how it does that, is pretty much their own concern as long as they abide by the laws of the land. If customers don't like their business model then they have the usual option...

Originally Posted by CommonReader

And there I was thinking that the distribution of other peoples' ideas were the very job of a bookseller. Whether I prefer to read Marx or Ayn Rand, St. Augustine or Dawkins, a collection of sermons or something sexually tintillating - I expect the bookseller to get me the book, instead of judging the book unasked for on my behalf.
I also wasn't aware of the fact that this book installed itself in a clandestine way like a rootkit on Peoples' kindles, popping up unasked when the owner wants to access a book of devout prayer.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Strange idea... some bookshops may distribute other peoples' ideas but none of them do so for everything... try looking at German laws relating to political material and many other countries on Holocaust denial together with countries' that ban huge amounts of Western books.

Then there are the specialist shops... .

True, but the bigger the retailer the more the expectation is that they will carry all manner and types of books. No certainly this is not required, but I think that is part of the disconnect here with large retailers like Amazon, B&N, Borders, Waterstones, etc.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

And there I was thinking that the distribution of other peoples' ideas were the very job of a bookseller. Whether I prefer to read Marx or Ayn Rand, St. Augustine or Dawkins, a collection of sermons or something sexually tintillating - I expect the bookseller to get me the book, instead of judging the book unasked for on my behalf.
I also wasn't aware of the fact that this book installed itself in a clandestine way like a rootkit on Peoples' kindles, popping up unasked when the owner wants to access a book of devout prayer.

I read somewhere that porn books have had a big surge in popularity since ebook readers became more common. I don't know if that is true or not, but it would make sense if it was. Ebook readers give people the same false sense of priavacy that the internet gives them.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I read somewhere that porn books have had a big surge in popularity since ebook readers became more common.....

Close.... It's that romance books -- which have been popular for a long time, and often include *cough* racy material -- have a big head start on ebooks, and make up a big percentage of current ebook sales.

The theory is that people tend to look askance at romance books, and ebook readers offer discretion.