Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

whoisjuan wrote: post #20

Reedx wrote: post #3

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…

Free flow of information is not the same as misinformation. Lack of understanding is not the same as misinforming. I 100% support restricting distribution of material that is based on conjecture and bullshit info. Especially when that information comes with a for-profit motive. This person can easily put their book for free on their own website if they really feel they have important information to share. Amazon can…

Post by djsumdog » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #56

I wonder why he hasn't used his freedom of speech to make the text of his pamphlet freely available on his own website, instead of depending on a publisher to carry it. Granted, it would be harder to monetize this speech, that way. He'd have to find a payment provider, take payments directly, et cetera. But I don't see why those ancillaries should detract from upholding a principle that clearly means so much to him.

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

panzagl wrote: post #44

akerro wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf, they don't seem to care about it as long as it brings profit?

Mein Kampf is an important document for understanding one of the most significant and tragic events in history. Only the truly ignorant would try to remove it.

Post by TallGuyShort » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #67

Reedx wrote: post #3

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…

> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. 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 wor…

Post by ianai » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #98

wwweston wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. 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 wor…

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…