
Amazon Pulls Books That Promote Unscientific Autism ‘Cures’ - tareqak
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/amazon-autism-books.html
======
Pharmakon
It’s not censorship, it’s curating a storefront. The laws that protect us from
actual censorship also protect Amazon’s right to make choices about what they
sell. I don’t like that WalMart refuses to stock anything short of the
nebulous American concept of “family friendly” yet I respect their right to
make that choice. I have the choice to not do business with them.

~~~
50656E6973
>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films,
news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat
to security.

Friendly reminder that the definition of censorship is not limited to the
government.

The books they've banned may indeed be misinformation, but lets not push even
more misinformation by denying simple dictionary definitions that seem
politically unacceptable.

~~~
imgabe
Then every website in the world censors information by filtering out spam. Why
does nobody weep for the poor spammers who just want to sell you cheap Viagra?
No doubt Amazon has been "censoring" their reviews in this way since the
beginning. Where's the outrage?

~~~
spaginal
Removing books from a "book" marketplace, that do not break any laws, aren't
lewd or pornographic, and simply present alternative information on a subject,
is not on the same level as spam.

Censorship is censorship. It doesn't need to be a political body to make it
so.

In the 80's, the idea of the corporate ran dystopian future where a
megalomaniac controlled society through his mega corporation was seen as scary
future.

Now we get the usual boot licking going on every time this topic is brought up
as Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google (Alphabet) actually put into practice
real censorship and attempt to control the majority of online communication,
ideas, and a good piece of all information over the internet.

What a turn for the worse we've taken as a society.

~~~
wlesieutre
_> present alternative information_

Like shouting "fire" in a crowded auditorium that is in fact _not on fire_?
Let's call it what it is: we're talking about lying about things that can and
will literally kill people.

Why should Amazon be expected to provide a platform for that?

~~~
wowzap
You can do that if you want, "fire in a movie theater" was an argument in an
overturned Supreme Court ruling.

~~~
wlesieutre
You can do that, but if you feel entitled to the theater's help in doing it
then I don't know what to tell you.

And if you expect the theater to let you in when you come back to watch a
movie the next day, you're going to be disappointed.

------
ilamont
Tip of the iceberg. I just searched Amazon for "cure for cancer" and the first
result is "Curing Cancer with Carrots." The cover features a carrot wearing a
lab coat and stethoscope, and it has 168 customer reviews, 89% of them 5 star.

Almost all of the nonfiction books and videos on the first search result page
promote similar "cures," with only one book based on medical research at spot
#8 (The Breakthrough: Immunotherapy and the Race to Cure Cancer) and a book
about the engineer who invented the universal microscope (The Cancer Cure That
Worked: 50 Years of Suppression)

People should be able to share their personal stories, but Amazon and other
tech companies have a responsibility to society, too. Claims like these can
have real life and death outcomes. It's not enough to shrug and blame the
algorithm because more people click on a book with a carrot on the front
cover.

~~~
educationdata
Exactly. It shows Amazon is making a bad precedent. If Amazon removes books
deemed to be unscientific, does this mean books have not been removed are
deemed to be scientific? Should Amazon has a science department to validate
all medical books?

~~~
toomanyrichies
> If Amazon removes books deemed to be unscientific, does this mean books have
> not been removed are deemed to be scientific?

An allegory: I'm currently using Craigslist to look for an apartment in San
Francisco. I frequently encounter posts which are obviously scammy. I
disregard them because I know that Craigslist can't possibly have the
resources to police all its listings.

That said, I still appreciate it when they take the time to remove a scammy
post. And I don't by _any_ stretch of the imagination think that the listings
I find on Craigslist have been endorsed by Craigslist.

Spot-checking and removing garbage posts from Craigslist (or books from
Amazon) may be a never-ending game of Whack-A-Mole, but it's still better than
letting those platforms turn into the Wild West.

------
brink
I've seen a number of people portraying this censorship (as I had feared) as
"proving them right", or making people wonder "what are they hiding?", further
fueling the anti-vax fire.

You just can't win. Hopefully this is only an initial reaction and will
eventually die down.

Personally, I don't know how I feel about normalizing censorship. Freedom of
information is a large part of how we reached the peak of our current
civilization. How long before this goes too far?

However, any organization that proliferates plagues should be labeled as a
terrorist organization. The anti-vax community is like a terrorist
organization with "good" intentions, and they're just regular misinformed
people all around us. Very tricky situation indeed..

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Freedom of information is a large part of how we reached the peak of our
current civilization.

This is one hell of an assertion, and needs substantial evidence to prove.

~~~
tlrobinson
It seems obvious to me. The printing press is often regarded as the foundation
of modern civilization.

~~~
enraged_camel
Printing press allows the spread of ideas. It doesn't guarantee or imply the
_free_ spread of ideas. Many countries with printing presses tightly control
what ideas can be printed.

------
whiddershins
I think it is easy to get distracted about whether or not Amazon has "the
right" to do this.

The argument for private businesses making their own choices is strong, the
argument for them being an effective monopoly is strong, I'm sure many other
arguments are strong.

What occurs to me, and especially after listening to the second Joe Rogan/Jack
Dorsey and co interview, is two dimensions of critically important inquiry:

\- What effect do policies and procedures like this have? How are they
perceived? What are the unintended consequences? What are the limits and
conditions surround the erection and enforcement of these policies? What is
likely to be the next set of things removed? What are the forces that guide
the decision making of the organization removing content?

\- What kind of world do we want to live in? Do these actions move us closer
to that world, once all relevant and foreseeable consequences are taken in to
account? What ability or mechanism exists to change course if the policy
doesn't have the intended effect? Is there a way books can be reinstated?

The reality, as I see it, is the policies surrounding content moderation have
tremendous future impact potential for culture and human experience.

We should make sure there is a broad and deep debate, not arbitrary action
that takes its validity merely by existing. That's called "might makes right."

------
alanfranz
I don't know whether I agree.

The world is full of shitty materials and content. Should Amazon, or other
intermediaries, be allowed such interferences?

Has any judge ordered such material not to be sold?

~~~
ashleyn
Private, yes. Government, no. Amazon is courageously admitting that ignorance
is still ignorance and that they have the right not to comply with ignorance.

Dangerous, anti-science literature was on the top of their own charts, and
ignoring that has moral implications. Amazon has decided indulging populist
fervor and the "wisdom of crowds" does not rank higher than protecting general
welfare where they have an influence.

~~~
jerf
Why should I trust Amazon's assessment of whether or not those books
constituted "ignorance"?

(Think carefully. Most people will "want" to answer the seemingly-closely-
related question "Why do you think these books are 'ignorance'?", but that is
_not_ the same question!)

~~~
ashleyn
You're not under any obligation to. Amazon isn't really a monopoly. The only
"sin" they've committed is refusing to cooperate with the implications and
consequences of listing pseudoscience on their own best seller list amid a
public health crisis rooted in populist ignorance.

~~~
ptero
> Amazon isn't really a monopoly.

I would completely agree with what you said about the rights of the private
companies if Amazon was a regular market player. But even you qualified above
statement. Even though Amazon is not _really_ a monopoly, it is pretty close
for small scale book selling. That is, it has such a dominant market share
that its decision not to sell a book can be a death sentence for a small book
publisher. Thus they should be super careful when culling titles by content --
next time they might pull <insert your favorite hot topic> and there will be
no recourse either.

------
amerkhalid
Amazon is private company and they are free to choose what they want to allow
on their platform. Apparently they don't allow pornography which is a lot less
harmful than these books. Authors are free to sell their snake oil on their
own.

However, when government forces Amazon to remove these books or force them to
sell these book, then we have a serious problem.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I agree with everybody that says that these books are dangerous and removing
is probably a net positive in the short term.

However, I worry in the long term that we are normalizing censorship of ideas.
It is not just simply a case of book stores not having enough shelf space so
they had to make editorial choices. Amazon, for all practical purposes has no
limits on the number of books it can stock. In addition, successfully getting
Amazon to do this will embolden people to pressure other book sellers as well.
In addition, there is no appeal to obscenity or legal fraud as the reason. The
book is being banned simply because we do not like the ideas it promotes.

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
I'd say there's a fine line between "free speech" and "dangerous medical
advice". Looking at a paragraph from the article:

>“Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” recommends that autistic children
drink and bathe in chlorine dioxide, a compound often referred to as “Miracle
Mineral Solution.” In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration described it as
“a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment”
that “can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe
dehydration.”

That's dangerous, plain and simple. I have no problem with a merchant on
Amazon that sells rat droppings in a jar, provided they make it very clear
what they're selling: rat droppings in a jar. If they start claiming that
consuming rat droppings will cure lymphoma, however, then we've got a problem.

~~~
WalterBright
Fraudulently selling rat droppings as a cure is very different from selling a
book claiming rat droppings are a cure. Governments deciding what is correct
science and what is heresy have a poor track record.

~~~
smhenderson
The government hasn't decided anything. Amazon is a private business not a
government. Regardless of which side of the debate we fall on here I think
it's important to keep that distinction in mind.

------
aur09
Now that Amazon has begun pulling books, they have set a precedent that dooms
them to continue doing so to the potentially many thousands of others with bad
information. This is acknowledgement that they have a responsibility as a
marketplace for the information contained in the books they sell.

------
Grue3
So books that promote unscientific cures are not allowed now? Interesting.

"And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will
raise him up" \-- The Holy Bible (James 5:15)

[http://www.fox8live.com/story/22052729/second-child-dies-
aft...](http://www.fox8live.com/story/22052729/second-child-dies-after-
parents-use-prayer-instead-of-seeking-medical-treatment/)

~~~
everdev
I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are
entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just
the line you quoted.

~~~
Hamuko
Where do you draw the line though?

~~~
alxlaz
It's hard to say. What's not hard to say is that crap like “Healing the
Symptoms Known as Autism” belongs on the other side of the line.

Stuff like this baffles me. Like, yes, it's hard to say where you draw the
line between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad), but no one (who is also
sane) wonders where you draw the line when discussing Hitler.

(Yes, I know about Godwin's law. I'm not being hyperbolic here, I think this
is a good comparison.)

------
theNJR
This is complicated. Anti-vax, flat earth and other ideologies masked as
science have turned into virus', distributed over social. At the same time,
people with all sorts of ideologies are shouting down facts they don't agree
with.

Scientists researching potential behavior and psychological treatments for
chronic fatigue syndrome are being targeted on Twitter so aggressively that
many are giving up on the research, and some journals are pulling their
findings (1). What happens when these people scream until Amazon pulls books
about it? A whole field of helpful research could be burried for decades.

These ideological battles used to be local. Now they are global and it's
causing real harm. We've discussed this previously. (2)

“Any information system of sufficient complexity will inevitably become
infected with viruses - viruses generated from within itself.”

(1) [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-
report/science-...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-
report/science-socialmedia/) (2)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19280858](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19280858)

------
adeptus
This is censorship, and it's a slippery slope.

IMHO the right way to go about this, would be for amazon to attach a letter to
the cover of the book saying something like: "We're sorry you bought this
book, but we do believe in your right to choose what you do with your time and
money, so we have not removed this book from our store. FYI, according to
(insert number of) scientists and XYZ peered reviewed papers, the vast
majority of the content of this book has been certified to be false and you
should seriously question the author's recommendations before acting on them,
as they may pose health risks. If you require further information, here's some
websites & books that provide what is widely considered to be factual
information on the matter".

~~~
favorited
Why is it Amazon's responsibility to carry a product they don't want to, then
independently supplement that product with their own editorializing?

It's a bad product which they don't want to carry. They're a store. It's their
prerogative to simply not sell that product.

~~~
kaybe
When a company gets that big, powerful and influential it can't just do
whatever it wants anymore. From a European perspective I'd say this is an
issue of freedom for society.

------
reader5000
This simply opens up a place in the market for uncensored book sales. If I
want an honest search of the web I don't go to Google because they heavily
censor and bias their search results. If I want to peruse the true set of
literature on a particular topic I don't go to Amazon for the same reasons. I
really don't see this "safe space" strategy paying off for these major tech
brands. The holier-than-thou internet simply makes itself irrelevant. People
can tell the difference between an honest retrieval of information versus a
heavily censored retrieval of information in accordance with some ideological
canon.

~~~
imgabe
If the "ideological canon" is that they only offer information that is
consistent with observable reality, I don't have a problem with that.

~~~
reader5000
"Consensus" particularly in complex empirical areas (e.g. are eggs healthy?)
is observably in constant flux with various strategic actors exerting heavy
influence. For any question more complex than pure math there is always
uncertainty and strategic bias.

~~~
imgabe
I very much doubt there is any flux around whether or not forcing your child
to drink bleach will cure their autism.

Personally, I am glad there are strategic actors exerting heavy influence on
the "don't force your child to drink bleach" agenda. You can add me to the
list: don't force your child to drink bleach. Ok?

~~~
reader5000
Thats fine but I get to decide if I want to buy a book about drinking bleach
to cure autism, Amazon doesn't decide it for me.

~~~
toomanyrichies
But you don't get to decide whether mixing bleach into your kids' Yoo-Hoo is
in their best interest. Because it empirically isn't. A parent who tried to do
this would be justifiably arrested on child endangerment charges, and no
amount of "parents' rights" kvetching would negate that. And if some parent
went on to write a book boosting this idea, Amazon would be roundly condemned
if it knowingly allowed that book to be sold on its platform.

------
mikeash
I did a quick search on Amazon for pornography. Nothing. Pretty sure there
never has been.

Amazon (and pretty much everyone else) has been censoring stuff from the
start. This act is not a radical change in policy, it's a tiny shift in where
they draw the line.

I'm constantly baffled at how upset everyone gets in cases like this. I could
see it when, for example, Tumblr started cracking down on stuff. But 99% of
these cases involve companies that have always engaged in censorship (or
curation or picking and choosing or whatever you want to call it) and are just
making some adjustments.

------
hateful
This was just mentioned on the Joe Rogan podcast:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dodsGp37M50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dodsGp37M50)

I forget the exact time it was mentioned, but it's in the first half
somewhere. The author he's talking to mentions that his book is #20 when you
search for autism because the first 19 were of the kind mentioned in this
article. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the driver of this.

------
imnotlost
Next is getting rid of all the supplements that don't work for anything
they're advertised for.

That would be all of them.

------
Someone1234
Slight tangent: Could Autism even be curable?

Obviously not by scammers/snake oil salesman, I'm talking legitimate science.
From my understanding Autism is largely genetic[0], so without the ability to
re-write someone's DNA (and the potential ramifications that could have), I
don't know if a cure like that could ever exist.

Although I guess Epigenetics[1] could be an interesting avenue of study.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_autism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_autism)

~~~
astine
Myopia is typically genetic but is can treated or cured (to a large degree) in
a number of ways. Just because something is genetic doesn't mean that there is
not treatment to effectively 'cure' it. The problem with autism is that we
know so little about what causes it on bio-mechanical level that medical
treatment is well beyond us. That may change in the future, but for now, there
is nothing we can do.

~~~
Someone1234
I'm not sure comparing eyeglasses to problems within formation of the brain is
a very strong comparison. We haven't really cured anything like autism that I
know of.

But I agree we're a very long way away from curing something like autism,
particularly if it required altering DNA/gene expression.

~~~
astine
The comparison is apt to the point I was making: that it is not the genetic
nature of autism that makes it difficult to treat but our ignorance of its
mechanisms (perhaps also the nature of the mechanisms themselves.) I think
that you're confusing the etiology of the thing with the thing itself. Just as
there is no reason to suspect that gene therapy would be necessary, there is
no reason to suspect that it would be helpful in a person who has already
developed autism.

------
president
Censorship is always touted as an absolute bad thing but in a world where a
large segment of the population is ignorant of basic knowledge but has a voice
due to the Internet, there doesn't appear to be another option. Like flat-
earthers or hardcore religious people, there is no logic in the world that can
change their minds. You simply have to block them. Especially, at least, when
these things have the ability to harm others.

------
mitchtbaum
> ..chiding the company about the failure of its algorithms to “distinguish
> quality information from misinformation or misleading information.”

Out of curiosity, what "process or set of rules to be followed in
calculations" would give that result?

(I hope my asking this doesn't mean I'm deluded too.)

~~~
mitchtbaum
> I hope my asking this doesn't mean I'm deluded too.

But if it somehow does, then perhaps more chiding will produce an algorithm
which can prove that too.. cause I have doubts.

------
sago
Before we roll out the censorship talking points, it is worth being clear on a
couple of details, I think:

1\. Amazon have removed two books out of hundreds (probably orders of
magnitude more) of anti-vax books.

2\. The books they removed do not seem to be primarily anti-vax, but quack
medical advice on treating autism.

3\. The only one we have details of recommended bathing your autistic child in
industrial bleach.

Slippery slope arguments are one thing, but selling books advising how to
abuse vulnerable children, is probably a libertarian argument to far for most.

~~~
arghwhat
I suppose it's a matter of specifying your success criteria. If you goal is
simply to _not have an autistic child_ , then industrial bleach does wonders.

In all seriousness, no punishment is severe enough for those willingly harming
innocent children. If only we could force them to experience the pain and
terror they caused with their own body.

------
exabrial
I'm totally fine with this. Sell your books in a store that specializes in
conspiracy theories along with the anti-vax, flat-earther, anti-gmo, essential
oil and anti-global warming people.

------
ryanmarsh
Given the number of wacky yet effective treatments that western medicine has
uncovered by accident I’d be more inclined to let people explore the
information out there as they desire.

Although uncovered under different circumstances Lorenzo’s oil is an
interesting case, cannabinoids for cancer patients are another.

Everybody thinks modern medicine is like CSI because a few people know how to
use CRISPR. The reality for many people with common diseases is that the
doctors a taking shots in the dark. In layman’s terms they don’t know what the
fuck they’re doing.

I have far too much personal experience with such things to be blinded by the
fancy motion graphics and splashy headlines. Being sick is a total shit show
of incompetence.

------
sgeisler
Why are people so concerned about autism, aren't there much worse conditions?
I know many genius people that would probably fall into the spectrum if ever
tested. They are typically obsessed with some field of research and develop
deep insight, which is valuable in an increasingly specialized society.

~~~
llukas
Your "typically" is based on media showing few cases of highly functional
people with autism. They do not show the rest.

------
jelliclesfarm
1\. A letter went from CA politician Adam Schiff to Jeff Bezos ‘chiding’ him.
It’s state interference.

The question is..would amazon have pulled those books if Adam Schiff didn’t
chide Jeff Bezos?

2\. It’s not about Autism. It’s about protecting Vaccines.

Every pharmaceutical drug comes with warnings and side effects. But it makes
tons of dollars. Placebos don’t.

3\. We live in a world where ..thanks to Monsanto..you can find Glyohosate in
mother’s breast milk. And that’s ok. Because. Science.

I am a woman. The tampons we use contains dioxin. So. Really. Colour me a
cynic. The govt doesn’t care.

This from CA where homeless people are allowed to live and freeze and shit and
shoot up on the streets. And given clean needles to shoot up safely. $600
million dollars and no solution for the problem.

Sometimes ‘problems’ are profitable. I see this drama and outrage as
protection of Big Pharma. There is a tiny fringe population that accepts these
books as gospel. There is nothing you can do to change them. This is merely a
dry run for censorship and more of a prep for nanny state installation.

I hope this isn’t encouraged.

------
rubyn00bie
Everyone talking about free speech and censorship needs to hold the fuck on
for a second... because context is about to play a huge part in this:

If I was selling arsenic on amazon and labeling it as a cure for cancer would
Amazon be in violation of our right to free speech for pulling it? If I was
selling mentos, but labeling them birth control, would that be censorship if
amazon pulled it?

This is supposed to be medicine and it’s fucking lies. This is safety and
soundness, it will hurt you or your children.

If I’m selling you a cure for something, and that cure is BOTH harmful and
does not work, then shutting me down isn’t censorship that’s fucking public
safety. It’s even responsible for fuck’s sake.

~~~
tengbretson
I don't hate the outcome, I just wish this was being done the "right way." The
author and publisher should be held liable for the content and be made to pay
for the damages they've caused. We have a court system for determining when
someone is peddling lies and harming people. Is it too much to ask that we
lean on our agreed upon institutions instead of making corporations elevate
themselves to a less transparent, less democratic, worse version of our
courts?

Is it too much to ask a company that provides a platform for commerce to just
be a platform for commerce?

~~~
will_brown
>I don't hate the outcome, I just wish this was being done the "right way."

So your saying the right way is to force amazon to continue selling this book?
That the sole remedy at Law is when people are injured then they can sue the
author?

That’s not how products liability works. If I’m injured by a defective
product, my legal remedy is against everyone in the stream of
commerce...manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, retailers, etc... they
would all be jointly and severally liable for my damages, meaning I can
collect 100% of my award for damages from any of the parties found liable.

~~~
sverige
Ideas aren't products. There's a difference between books and physical
products that you ingest (such as arsenic or mentos). The GP's argument uses a
false equivalency.

~~~
codetrotter
A book isn't just ideas though. If it's sold and presented by a retailer that
you trust (Amazon), then those words carry a lot more weight for the readers
than the ideas would on their own.

~~~
sverige
Bullshit. A book is just ideas that have been written down.

And the argument that buying it on Amazon gives it more credibility is so
ridiculous that I actually laughed out loud.

~~~
will_brown
> A book is just ideas that have been written down.

So are safety labels which attempt to minimize product liability.

So say I sell a chainsaw with safety labels that say to hold the chain and not
the handle when starting the thing...could I be liable if someone is injured
holding the chain? I mean the chainsaw was a perfectly safe product, as far as
chainsaws go, it was only the following of my written down ideas that got
someone injured.

I know exactly what you are saying and there is some case Law on point (a case
involving a wild mushroom picking book and the plaintiff relying on the book
and getting sick as a result). It’s one thing for the author to take that risk
but it’s a whole other animal to force amazon to take that risk when they
didn’t want to carry the book to begin with.

~~~
sverige
I'm not arguing that Amazon should be forced to sell these books. I'm arguing
that the original argument above which used product liability for selling
poisons to argue in favor of stopping the publication of books is
inappropriate.

Products and ideas are two different things. Frankly, it's frightening that
such a basic point has to be argued at all.

To the larger points about "censorship" being made here, for me it's not so
much to do with the government banning books or corporations refusing to sell
books. It's that there is so much fervor on so many fronts to prevent ideas
from being presented at all. Bad ideas will ultimately be discarded if there
is open and free discussion because they will be shown to be weak and wrong.
Suppressing discussion is the tactic of those who are afraid their ideas won't
win in a free marketplace.

------
anigbrowl
Relevant to this topic: trolls and bots amplify the online vaccine debate, eg
[https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.3045...](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567)

------
dbg31415
This is censorship. Two wrongs don't make a right.

------
throwawaysea
WHY THIS IS CENSORSHIP

I am seeing numerous comments claiming this is not censorship when it most
definitely is. From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other
> information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable,
> harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a
> government, private institutions, and corporations.

From Merriam-Webster ([https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/censorship](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/censorship)), where there is no mention of 'censorship'
being a government-specific concept:

> the institution, system, or practice of censoring

From Oxford
([https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship)),
where again there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific
concept:

> The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
> are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

We know Amazon is a private corporation. That's irrelevant, as such actions
are censorship regardless. So please stop repeating the false claim that this
isn't censorship because Amazon can do whatever it wants as a private entity.

WHY FREE SPEECH MATTERS

Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and
principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today. The
idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States. Free speech
is hugely valuable to defend, because what society finds acceptable or
unacceptable is very much subjective and changes with
time/location/culture/setting/leadership/etc. Having an open exchange of ideas
is good and necessary for the long-term health and stability of society.
Furthermore, making available ideas that challenge current understanding is
necessary if we care about being a collectively truth-seeking society.

Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights
at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the
speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should
be permitted. Getting into the business of censoring indirect or non-physical
harm (and similarly, judging what is scientific/pseudo-
scientific/unscientific) is a huge slippery slope. We could frame virtually
any idea as having some downstream negative externality and suggest that it
should be disallowed. For example, capitalism, socialism, and communism could
all be attacked in this manner. Should books on those topic be dropped?

On the topic of health: our current scientific understanding is not
bulletproof. It may never fully be. Look at how much our understanding of what
constitutes a healthy diet has changed, just over the last 100 years of human
existence. During that time, various individuals (e.g. scientists), companies,
governments (via agencies like the FDA), and other institutions expressed
high-degrees of confidence in beliefs that went on to be disproved over time.
It would be a mistake to only allow ideas with broad scientific consensus
_today_. People should be allowed to decide for themselves which institutions
and parties and ideas to trust, and to what extent. Large platforms
(privately-owned or otherwise) should not get in the way of that access if we
want to maintain liquidity of information exchange.

WHY PRIVATE PLATFORMS' CENSORSHIP IS CONCERNING

Large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across today's
society, that censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact
as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes. Even if these
corporations do not constitute what we might traditionally call a "monopoly",
they control a large-enough share of traffic to have significant impact when
they take artificial actions. That sizable impact is exactly why they are
being targeted (not just on this topic but others) by activists or other
agents pushing for deplatforming/censorship favorable to their causes.

The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal
discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments,
those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar
impacts/risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law.
These companies should not act as a thought police and should not impose their
own personal governance above what is minimally required by the law. Nor
should they rely on the judgment of an angry mob to make decisions.

~~~
8note
dictionaries are descriptive, not authoritative. whether this counts as
censorship or not will always be up to debate.

I'd see these as all being applications of speech; amazon is making a
statement about these books by putting them in the store front. Folks like
Donald Trump or Sean hannity have lots of influence, but we don't prevent them
from speaking because of it.

~~~
throwawaysea
> dictionaries are descriptive, not authoritative. whether this counts as
> censorship or not will always be up to debate.

I don't think I agree with this claim about dictionaries being "descriptive".
The word 'censorship' exists already, and it has a definition that is
unambiguous. The role of these definitions is so that we can all communicate
efficiently using a word that is a placeholder for that full definition,
knowing that we have common agreement on the definition since we're using the
same language.

The folks scoping 'censorship' to just governments are redefining the term in
a manner that serves their own views, and are eroding a preexisting definition
to avoid the connotation it carries. That seems like waging rhetorical warfare
in bad faith, rather than holding a meaningful discussion.

> amazon is making a statement about these books by putting them in the store
> front

Amazon isn't making a 'statement' by putting books in the storefront. They
aren't evaluating each and every product or reading/fact-checking all the
content of everything they carry. Amazon is performing very basic market
activities, in a stoic and impersonal manner. These activities include things
like fulfillment, payment processing, catalogs, recommendations based on
customer behavior (e.g. purchases), reviews, etc. These are impersonal and
low-level activities, and are by no means "making a statement".

~~~
Mikhail_Edoshin
All definitions are ambiguous. It's useless to argue over them. We need to
argue about real things in the real world. To do that we need to name them,
point them out. It's easy for things like cows or planes; for things like
censorship we need to zero in on a minimal model that showcases censorship.

For example, if I remove a book from my private library because of its
contents, is it censorship? I don't think so. What if this is my library, but
opened to a public, even to some small community? In this case I think this is
censorship. What if the whole community decided the book should be removed?
Again, it's not censorship. What if only the elders of the community came to
the decision? It seems more like censorship again. What if we removed the book
because it's damaged or, say, radioactive? Not censorship.

See, it doesn't matter if I'm a "big player" or something like that, or
whether I have rights to do what I do, or what the book contains. All I have
to do is to have some people to restrict access to a book or something like
that to another group of people because of the contents of the book.

------
setquk
We shouldn’t censor them because that has side effects when any sort of
mechanism is introduced.

However two laws should be made:

1\. Not vaccinating your kids should be classified as a child protection
offence (unless there is medical basis from a panel, not one quack). Kids are
confiscated, vaccinated and put into state care after one warning.

2\. Promoting non NHS / FDA etc approved medical advice should be a criminal
offence and ends up with the publisher, author, owners being chucked in jail.

The latter covers bullshit like homeopathy and Chinese herbal medicine as
well.

There’s no place for any of this in 2019. We should actively shame anyone
partaking in this.

~~~
everdev
> Not vaccinating your kids should be classified as a child protection offence
> (unless there is medical basis from a panel, not one quack). Kids are
> confiscated, vaccinated and put into state care after one warning

Great, once you pass that law you'll have drug companies lobbying to get their
vaccine listed on your "must inject by age X or get your kids taken away"
list. Imagine the revenue for every kid in the country being mandated to
inject your vaccine.

Usually, our attempt to bring risk to 0 brings tyranny close to 100.

The scenes of the government dragging a kid out of their parent's grasp and
injecting a needle into their arms is straight out of any stereotypical
dystopian novel.

Yes, it can be frustrating fighting disinformation, but patience and kindness
is almost always better in the long run IMO than force and punishment.

I understand the desire to eliminate unnecessary risk, but getting everyone
vaccinated and respecting individual freedom is not an easy task. Our country
is more vaccinated than it's ever been, but the last few % might take longer
than most people would like.

~~~
setquk
And I ask you this question: is it morally acceptable to allow someone to harm
someone else?

~~~
everdev
That by itself is a complex question. Most people consider violent self
defense to be OK.

People's ability to buy alcohol is a safety risk. Many crimes and fatal
accidents involve alcohol. Do we force everyone to stop drinking alcohol?

I can't think of a government policy that has implemented 100% adoption
without tyranny. I'm all for as close to 100% as we can get, but I don't want
to lose our values of freedom and respect to get there.

------
nickysielicki
Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society. People have a right to
delude themselves. Imagine having a child with autism, you are overwhelmed by
it, you are unwilling to accept what the doctors tell you.

Who is Amazon, or anyone, to tell someone that they can't explore every
avenue, and read whatever they want to deal with that grief? Think about the
cathartic experience of reading this book and getting momentary hope that
there's an answer to a problem that you've been told is unsolvable. It's
psychologically like playing the lottery.

~~~
shadowfox
> Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society

I mean, sure. But not every trader must therefore carry and sell snake oil.
The same free society gives them that choice.

> Who is Amazon, or anyone, to tell someone that they can't explore every
> avenue, and read whatever they want to deal with that grief?

All they seem to be saying is that they won't be selling it to you? You are
certainly free to explore every avenue on your own. But does everyone have to
help you with that?

~~~
nickysielicki
I'm not saying they should have to, but I am saying that they ought to.

I think freedom and free speech are good things. Don't you?

~~~
8note
id say amazon not carrying an item is a application of free speech.

publisher is saying "this is how you cure autism" and amazon is saying "no,
that isn't"

for amazon to leave it up would be to not use their freedom, which is bad
because using free speech is good.

