Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#241

Post by natechols » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #218

StuntPope wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berenson isn't a libertarian, the guy who wrote the article (me), is. And I grapple with the dissonance between free market libertarian principles and big tech "take-it-or-leave-it" control over discourse all the time. As Voltaire says... "uncertainty is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one". Every ideology has these complicated areas within them and you're either aware of them and grapple with i…

But the whole point of extreme political ideologies like libertarianism and anarchism is that they are dogmatic. They have simple answers to complex problems. If you're grappling with gray areas, then congrats! You now have a more nuanced understanding that brings you closer to center, and you're not libertarian anymore.

I think part of the problem is these labels mean different things to different people, and can express anything from a vague philosophical preference to an absolutist ideology. Many of my peer group (myself included) have broadly libertarian sympathies but are also willing to pay for a more generous welfare state if that's the price of freedom. What label applies in that case? Left-libertarian? Small-government liberal? Libertarian Democrat? All of these are unsatisfactory, in part because they mix up ideology with governing platform.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#242

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #233

DanBC wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomis…

Further down, under "Added value of this study," it says "Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields)"

Yes, but that's a low certainty finding.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#243

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #189

godelski wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never get this. Why does Bill Gates need to inject people to track them when we're all carrying cell phones which provide far more data including much more refined location data than you could get will an implant. Just saying, if you're going to have a conspiracy, there's a much better one to use as your basis.

it is not tracking, the conspiracy theory it is supposed to be a 'mark of the beast' that designates someone is part of the new world order founded by the antichrist the actual technology is a a sub skin electronic ink that is implanted during vaccination that can be read with a cell phone, used to track vaccinations in less developed countries

Funny that people are downvoting it, it’s completely accurate. A lot of people believe this. I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t been told that directly by a true believer. A lot of right-leaning people still believe the DNC had a pedo operation in that pizza joint, and the Epstein stuff only convinces them even further.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#244

Post by ianai » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #222

msandford wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dilemma or not lying erodes trust. Was it worth it? Probably not is what a lot of people are saying.

It also ignores a third option (and one that was actually used anyways), blocking all shipments of n95 masks to retail outlets to send to hospitals instead

That’s not an option. Apparently hospitals get their stock from essentially the same places as the rest of us. Like not the target down the road but the warehouse target gets its stock of ppe.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#245

Post by HideousKojima » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #159

nabla9 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it completely backwards :) It's is technically correct. Legally and conceptually censorship is defined only as censorship done by the government. Censorship is commonly understood to mean any kind of censoring or removing of content.

Google Dictionary agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster, Brittanica and Wikipedia disagree.

Even the Google dictionary result doesn't say it's exclusive to governmental action

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#246

Post by zarkov99 » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

Also, go ahead and celebrate Chinese New Year in NY. Nothing to fear.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#247

Post by tzs » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #140

pen2l wrote: post #2

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…

I can think of nothing that epitomizes privilege more than living in a society with free speech, and being so willing to embrace censorship of ideas, even when they are clearly dumb or even dangerous. Democracy was a dangerous idea one time. I get your exhaustion. My dad succumbs to dumb shit all the time. A lot of it is on the mainstream corporate news channels. Currently, there is some kind of information you and I…

> Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times.

It's not accuracy that makes a source legitimate. Legitimate sources will publish misinformation.

The differences between legitimate and illegitimate sources are that (1) legitimate sources make a considerable effort to not publish misinformation, (2) legitimate sources publish corrections and retractions when they find out that they have published misinformation, and (3) legitimate sources make sure to label opinion pieces as such.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#248

Post by pen2l » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #221

DanBC wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In healthcare there's a bunch of stuff that sounds plausible, and then we do the research, and we find that it doesn't help or it causes harm. Evidence based medicine isn't there to stop crystal healing. It's there to work out whether knee arthroscopy is better than placebo. (For some patients it isn't). Masks have a plausible mechanism of action. But they also have plausible mechanisms of harm: they may reduce socia…

The Lancet's credibility is kind of in the toilet right now thanks to publishing that Hydroxychloroquine study that appears to have had the data pulled from thin air

It looks bad right now, yes, but Lancet and NEJM both had the two studies retracted, and both will carry their reputation.

Retractions happen in all sorts of journals. Sadly, they will keep happening. Journals need to impose a page limit, alas a paper cannot describe its methodology down to every last detail, peer review can only do so much when you have bad actor intent on passing through.

This blip aside, it doesn't take away the fact NEJM and Lancet both have a history of being great sources of information, indeed they are still _the_ place doctors go to to get informed. I don't see that changing.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#249

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #162

nmakow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did we forfeit our ability to think critically and judge sources on our own?

In the minds of the political elites, when Trump won the 2016 election. I hate the guy as much as anyone. My wife was crying. It was a shock. The DNC could have examined why they lost the key swing states by the thin margins they did in a deep, meaningful way. But that would have required acknowledging mistakes made by their highly paid political consultants and their own power brokers. But who wants to be the person…

The fact that those same people are downvoting you tells you that most people still haven’t clued in. Expect the same mistakes and 4 more years of Trump. Sigh.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#250

Post by kazinator » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #81

kazinator wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. 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…

>> A libertarian complaining about a private company choosing not to do business with them? Damn those big corporations and their... checks notes freedom to do business with who they choose? > Corporations in the USA are not free to do business with whomever they choose. But wouldn't a libertarian (or at least some of them) be opposed to those restrictions on the individual liberty of corporations?

Right, and so if the libertarian suspected that a corporation is acting in some way due to some state coercion, the libertarian would complain without implying that the libertarian doesn't believe in the free market.