> The GOP wants to ban pornographic materials in children's classrooms.
One of the most popular books on the "ban" lists is Handmaid's Tale. If you read that and classify it as pornographic, I might direct you to retake high school English to brush up on reading comprehension.
There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK.
Really? I'd say there is a political difference. I can escape a private corporation if I really wanted to, or shop elsewhere for that specific content. I can't generally escape government rules unless they're specially crafted to carve out private schools. And if they do carve out private schools, then you're saying the materials aren't actually harmful to rich privileged kids and only the poors?
Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really?
Back when I was a democrat, the democrat party would not have stood for this.
> Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country?
Let's be precise with our words. A monopoly doesn't mean no competition. Amazon only controls 50% of the online+offline print book market which as far as monopolies go isn't as dominant as Google's 88% and closer to iOS's ~50%. It's a dominant position but there's plenty of room for you to go obtain books elsewhere. Additionally, self-publishing has never been easier.
> Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really?
No idea what this is about. If we're still on the can't publish anything "anti-trans" topic, might be worthwhile to consider that people identifying as trans make up less than half of 1 percent of the population (~0.4% if we're rounding up). Maybe there just isn't actually all that much interest in a niche population that has no power?
You're arguing to the degree of monopoly but the Democratic party I knew didn't, for example, claim workers had power because there were three auto companies.
No they recognized the power imbalance and corrected it. That's the party I left. Lord knows what it has become.
But staying on topic. You were arguing that that's the more dangerous situation than the government banning books? I just don't understand this line of reasoning, especially when said "banned" books are arguably not pornography & the bans typically are targeting things like discussion about racism, homosexuality, teen pregnancy, abortions etc. It's basically "I don't like these topics & I don't want my child to think about them and have an alternate perspective shown"
May be useful to read up on the data behind the bans.
At the end of the day, children have no right to free speech. No GOP policy has ever prevented parents from showing whatever to their children. The only thing sought to be regulated is what set of books any child can pick out. I'm honestly shocked this is controversial.
Do I agree with all the curatorial decisions? No of course not. However, it's not censorship, it's curation of material for children's consumption.
On the other hand, Amazon's censorship is targeted at adults. You're correct that Amazon itself is only 50% of the marketplace. But Amazon is not just Amazon the company. It's also a marketplace where other sellers are. Altogether, those sellers constitute 40% of the e-commerce market. Again, a significant portion. Their decision to not allow those selling 'controversial' books on their market (and keep in mind they will sell you all kinds of depraved pornographic material. You can even buy Mein Kampf on amazon [1]) is basically greatly limiting the distribution of the book. That is un-American.
Censorship is not just about government. At some point people need to get that. It's just like redlining. Businesses cannot decide to en masse deny the market to an entire group of people or ideas.
[1] adults should be able to. Children may be not.
> At the end of the day, children have no right to free speech
Was there a change to the constitution I'm unaware of? Children have all the same rights as adults albeit there are certain limited situations where those rights are allowed to be restricted or impinged. Not that book banning is a 1st amendment issue for students.
We're in agreement that it's OK to curate that content. However, that curation should not be random parents complaining and creating permanent bans on content, which is how this book banning works.
> However, it's not censorship, it's curation of material for children's consumption
> On the other hand, Amazon's censorship is targeted at adults
When I like it it's curation and when I don't it's censorship. Got it.
One of the most popular books on the "ban" lists is Handmaid's Tale. If you read that and classify it as pornographic, I might direct you to retake high school English to brush up on reading comprehension.
There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK.