31–40 of 345 posts
This line made me laugh. As if a Twitter blue check means anything at all. Even used “even”.
Regarding the “censorship”, I’m not sure why anyone thinks Amazon as a publisher should just publish anything. They are not even close to being a monopoly and there are a million other channels to publish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clin... -- a letter signed by over 100 scholars and researchers strongly condemning his previous book which says that marijuana is the culprit behind violence
That's an interesting article. I think I'd like to take a look first hand. Perhaps I'll buy some of his books so I can decide for myself. Where are they available?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
‘who decides what is bullshit’ Is the usual problem with this.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a compilation of data that hasn't been widely reported.
The guy doesn't have a great record of being trustworthy. See https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/letter-scholars-and-clin... -- a letter signed by over 100 scholars and researchers strongly condemning his previous book which says that marijuana is the culprit behind violence
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
‘who decides what is bullshit’ Is the usual problem with this.
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.
Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf, they don't seem to care about it as long as it brings profit?