61–70 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘who decides what is bullshit’ Is the usual problem with this.
Well, with ideas like the one that claims COVID is spread to 5G networks, it's pretty easy to draw the line. But I get what you're saying. The closer you get to a rational argument the harder it is to scrutinize it.
After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively…
Why does he think bill gates is behind COVID? That's a new one I have not seen yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t propagate disinformation as much as the next guy, but this is a strawman. Nowhere in the book does it say anything about Bill Gates behind covid, or any similarly ludicrous conspiracies. The book mentioned appears to be reasonable and fact based.
> fact based Does it represent both sides of the controversy equally or is it only nitpicked facts?
There’s a difference between censorship and a book publisher deciding they don’t want to publish or sell a book. This appears to be a case of the later. He’s free to print and distribute his book, but no private company is under any obligation to help him in that endeavor.
> I may just make it available for download and people can contribute if they like BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Amazon is by far the largest channel for book sales worldwide. The people who need to see this the most will not.
[flagged]
Can a USA corporation sell rocket launchers to Iran?
Can a USA company buy the president of Ruritania a Rolex watch in order to beat a French company in a bridge construction bid?
Can a USA corporation get together with its cohorts and agree not to sell some commodity below a mutually agreed price?
Can a US citizen obtain and act on advice/information from whomever whatsoever, at any time whatsoever, about trading any equity whatsoever?
How do you know that Amazon isn't turning down Covid-19 books due to some regulatory pressure from the government?
There’s a difference between censorship and a book publisher deciding they don’t want to publish or sell a book. This appears to be a case of the later. He’s free to print and distribute his book, but no private company is under any obligation to help him in that endeavor.
Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a no…
Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is:
* most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer
* the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used)
* most people probably don't need those masks
There's a worthwhile criticism in noting some seem to have taken longer to get on board with the idea that marginally effective masks (a) reduce spread and (b) are a low-cost intervention, but people who are going to make that criticism probably should doing it from a standpoint where they're asking themselves why they flattened the above multi-point conception into "masks don't work."
And if this is all about using the initial misunderstanding as a jumping off point to the difficulty of getting non-trivial information out to the public, that actually underscores the importance of curation.
> Does no one read history or think about second order effects?
Are you suggesting that this is the milestone of history where someone decided not to publish or distribute material because they thought it was irresponsible?
Because I'd bet that's happened before, even inside societies that cultivate robust discourse. Maybe even a lot.
Who is thinking about the second order effects of a no-responsibility no-curation approach?
Declining to sell a book in a store isn’t “censorship”. The author could easily host the book on their own website. If the government forces them to take it down, then it’s censorship.
Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a no…
Amazon has put in place publicly know and clearly defined policies for a specific and unique situation. This is not a slippery slope. The second they step out of that boundary there will be severe backlash.
After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively…
What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media?
It really bothers me that there is a group of people begging for corporate overloads to control and think for the population. Its literally the opposite of everything this country stands for.