He’s absolutely not right about this. No author is owed a review, publication or an audience.
No, he’s talking about criticism, but calling it silencing. Criticism is not silencing.
Who is silencing them?
If he is so clearly right about his opinion being silenced, then how did you even hear about it?
Bullshit. Amazon refusing to allow the publisher to purchase ads isn’t criticism, it’s silencing. Newspapers and magazines refusing to allow journalists to publish reviews isn’t criticism, it’s silencing. Target taking the book off the shelves isn’t criticism, it’s silencing.
That’s not silencing, any more than their refusal to review my novel, or carry the paperback of my novel in brick and mortar bookstores, is silencing.
It’s not going well. But trying to suppress this stuff just makes it worse. People wonder what you’re hiding. People stop trusting the media to tell them the truth. If you encounter a conspiracy theory through a mainstream source, you’ll probably find the rebuttal as well. If you encounter it through a YouTube video or on Facebook, you won’t. And once that person stops trusting the ‘liberal media’, you’ve lost your chance to get through to them.
Does the same apply for advocacy for genocide, or pedophilia? Should mainstream outlets allow pro-pedophilia and pro-genocide ads, or review pro-pedophilia and pro-genocide books?
Not reviewing or stocking a novel because they aren’t sure how much interest there’ll be is very different to removing it because of protests and refusing to review it for fear of controversy. Did Amazon refuse to let your publisher pay for ads?
Good question, and I’m really not sure of the answer. I guess the ACLU would defend their right to publish those books, do you think they’d be right to do so?
And yet the evidence that presenting both sides leads people recognizing the lies and propaganda is that it isn’t so. The media has been presenting both sides of climate change, as an example, for quite some time. And how’s that going? Should the media present both sides of the “Q” conspiracy? Should the media present both sides of the laughly inept Hunter Biden laptop? Treating obvious lies and propaganda as something that needs to be seriously discussed makes the lies and propaganda seem potentially serious.
Again, for the most part, none of the lies and propaganda are actually being removed. They’re simply be marked as lies and propaganda. So what’s the problem? The lies are made available, but people are being told that they’re lies.
I’m a firm supporter of free speech made in good faith. Free speech with some limits is fine, and a reasonable limit is to have lies and propaganda identified as such, or even at the option of the outlet not publish them at all. Unlimited free speech only works if everyone acts honourably and/or everyone has good critical thinking skills, and we simply know that isn’t the case. Critical thinking, for example, is something that educators have been pushing for, but the right rails about it being an assault on religion. It is funny that it is the right that wants people to be unable to recognize lies and propaganda and wants the unfettered right to publish lies and propaganda without anyone being able to call them out for it being lies and propaganda (because labelling an obvious lie as a lie is “censorship”, when in fact it is simply criticism).
Either way, it’s about business. They want to maximize sales. People are free to protest (and counter-protest), and businesses are free to make decisions based on what they think is best for business.
They have the right to publish, and even accept ads from them, and I have the right to say “I won’t give you my business, and I’ll encourage others not to spend money at your business, if you aid pro-genocide or pro-pedophilia literature by allowing their ads”.
@DemonTree, if you agree that it’s perfectly appropriate to protest a publishing outfit for running ads for a pro-pedophilia book, then our disagreement is about what specific books and types of books are reasonable to protest (and reasonable to deny ads for), not some broader philosophical disagreement.
It is worth noting that the book in question is on Amazon and has 700ish reviews, so you know people are seeing it and buying it. I won’t link to it because I refuse to support transphobia. Oh no!! I censored the author by not linking to it! No wait, that’s right, I don’t have to link to it. The author isn’t owed my linking to their ideology.
Ohh, that’s what this is all about!
You have stopped making any sense at all, if indeed you ever made any.
Wipe that surprised expression off your face!
Is that what the kids call it these days?
LLLOL +1 internet points.
I know LOL, but what does the first L stand for? Literal.
And the second L? That’s a typo.
(with apologies to The Simpsons for stealing their bit)
More broadly, anyone that’s watched the rise of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, and has watched the concommitant erosion of trust in science and the rise of a nasty, cultish reactionary conservatism during this time, has got to question their ideological commitment to free speech under the control of enormous corporations. I’m pretty okay with Amazon refusing to platform bigoted assholes like this author, but I’m not at all okay with Amazon having the platform they have.