Except that we now have all these digital monopolies, as LHoD pointed out. But people are making their own. Or more precisely, the right are making their own and the left is driving more and more people onto them by supporting censorship. Is that really what you wanted?
I think what meant to say it is the right is driving more people to it by claiming the left is supporting censorship when the left is not, in fact, supporting censorship.
Parler and the other conservative platforms are no different in terms of supposed censorship, except that they ban liberals and liberal messaging. All of this is just the free market in action.
I support free speech. Which includes whatever censorship those private platforms choose to do. It also includes your right to not support those platforms.
The book is selling well largely because efforts taken to attack it have simultaneously given it free publicity. The post above has done exactly that. Seeing this phenomenon play out over and over again in my Twitter feed is crazy.
But what is crazier is that I have yet to see a compelling explanation for how the book is actually transphobic, false, or biased (and this doesn’t surprise me at all). The absence of a fact-based refutation only makes its more likely people will buy the book so they can see what the hubbub is about. More book sales, more people reading it, more people influenced…exactly the opposite of what the book’s critics would want, I’d think.
In response to the OP, the lesson here is that corporate attempts to block undesired speech can easily backfire when consumer demand for that speech (or any speech) is high. I suspect this why it’s not seen as a hugely worrisome thing. That said, we shouldn’t bank on always having a consumer population that values freedom of thought and access to diverse opinions; if we lose that, then our purchasing power will cease to be an effective check against corporations.
ACLU relies on donations and so it is not immune from this economic pressure.
Nope. I mean people are banned from mainstream media so they move to these right-wing sites. And readers follow them.
Do you support calls to ban/burn books for having the wrong opinions in them? For journalists to be fired because they printed an op-ed you don’t like?
If the OP wants to discuss supposed censorship by tech giants maybe they try focusing on something that is actual censorship tech giants. Twitter and Facebook have banned QAnon. YouTube has cracked down on them.
Now that’s actual censorship. Q theories are not permitted on those platforms at all. Not just not promoted, not just flagged as being false, not allowed at all (supposedly I’ve not idea how much they’re policing this).
Personally, I support the ban. The Q conspiracy theory is obviously false and chock full of lies, and it is actively harmful. It has no place in public discourse because it gives it the veneer of credibility. It should have been banned at the outset and then it would never have flourished at all.
Such as? Are you talking about the likes of Alex Jones? Alex Jones should never have been given a platform in the first place. He should never have been allowed to flourish. I’ll be interested to see if you can name someone who actually presents honest ideas in a good faith manner to the marketplace of ideas that has been forced off of large platforms.
I support their right to CALL for burnings/bannings as long as they aren’t calling for government action. Do I AGREE with burnings and bannings, no, I think it’s stupid. Which is why I don’t participate in them.
I agree with a company firing whomever they think is costing them money. If a journalist spews some garbage and pisses off enough customers, why shouldn’t they get fired?
Fine. I support their right to call for those things, but I think it’s not just stupid but dangerous and bad for society.
Because there is a lot of value in exposing everyone to a range of opinions, even if it pisses off some of your readership. I believe news media should have a higher calling than just making money.
I’ll support your efforts in creating such an organization.
So a newspaper shouldn’t fire a journalist who starts praising Nazis and white supremacism? That’s wrong, in your opinion?
But you are not saying that they should be free to do that, you are saying that they should be required to do that. And then you call that free speech.
And a meaningful exercise of the right to free speech is to criticize, condemn, or even ignore someone else.
Oh, so you are for censorship? As long as it is against ideas that you are against?
Besides, that baker was not censoring them, he was discriminating against him. If Amazon had refused to carry a particular book, then that would be a bit closer to what you are trying to claim. In the case you refer to, I think that the baker should have had to make the cake, but that doesn’t mean that he should have had to promote that he did so.
If these platforms censor anyone, would you maintain your claim that they are leaving because they are afraid of censorship?
Or would you admit that they are going there because they only want their own form of censorship, which is to censor any criticism of their ideas?
As pointed out, it has always been the case there are “gatekeepers” to information. What changes, as LHoD points out, is how we see them work. 40 years ago if Random House rejected your book you could resubmit to Simon or to Harper and then on to smaller houses (and the houses could redirect you to their downmarket or specialized divisions if they saw it fit); similarly if Life or Playboy rejected your article you could keep going down the list. If the Times or the Globe did not review you maybe the Post-Dispatch or the Chronicle or the Herald would or the Evening Sun or local hometown papers. If you were not interviewed on Today or Tonight or maybe you would on the Morning Show at a local AM station.
And if you wanted to publish harebrained kookery you would not go to the Times or to Harcourt, because they’d laugh at you; but you’d find yourself some “underground” Wingnut Press outfit to do your publishing. And you would be hard pressed to find shelf space at the mainstream bookstores or a review in the Tribune, but you could perhaps get it placed at a newsstand in between porn and stoner 'Zines or reviewed in your local alternative weekly or discussed at 3 am on community access local cable.
The issue these days…
…is we have allowed to evolve outfits that dwarf the scope and reach of the 1980 mainstream book industry and Big Three TV Networks.
In those old days, someone who wanted to find something out, had to seek it. Buy the newspaper or pick up the alt weekly. Go to the Town Hall. Browse the bookstore or the underground newsstand. Tune in to the 3am community cable channel. Go to the Public Library and ask a trained professional at the desk for what/where are the books on that matter – which would themselves be mostly vetted by professional editors.
Now that people are used to the information just comign to them, I’m not surprised the view has developed that if it’s not on Google/Amazon it might as well not exist.
“Why Nazi-pedo-necro-bestialitists get a bad rap, tonight at 11!”
Then make sure that you donate to your local NPR station!
Right, this book is clearly anti-Trans propaganda, hurtful and bigoted.
No one is burning the book. The book has not been banned by any governmental agency. Amazon lists the book for sale.
There is no free speech issue here.
It is about how eviiiiil it is that some teens are discovering/choosing to be trans.
And now you don’t have to do any of that, now you can just set yourself up a blog.
But we are not talking about things that are not on Google or Amazon, we are talking about things that are on Google and Amazon. They just are not being promoted as much as the authors would like. People actually have to do some level of seeking it out.
What @DemonTree seems to want is for these views to be promoted, to just go to people. To force them to see and consider these views.
I see only a claim that ads werent allowed to be bought, and I need a real cite, not just this article, like maybe a letter from Amazon saying that. Amazon does list the book for sale.
Newspapers and magazines have only so much space to devote to reviews, they reserve it for books they consider important or best sellers. I have two friends, and neither can get their series of fantasy book reviewed in any major publication, they have to get Amazon reader reviews, etc. That’s not “silencing”- it is marketing.
If the book wasnt selling Target shoudl take it off, and I cant imagine what sort of bigot would want to read that travesty.