Liar. It’s even a Amazon Prime item.
The word “monopoly” is absolutist and misleading. A corporation can be non-monopolistic and still have outsized influence on an industry, and that can be a problem.
It’s a decision on how they want to run their business, which makes it a “business decision.”
Let me put it another way. Do these Christian bookstores have an influence on what gets published in the first place? And are they all owned by one company or does each stock somewhat different books according to the owners’ whims?
I think Christian bookstores and Amazon should be forced to carry all books. No exceptions because that would be censorship.
So what you’re saying really is that you object to what you perceive as monopolistic behavior by Amazon with respect to book retailing?
It doesn’t have anything to do with the philosophical underpinnings of banning books in that case; it’s about Amazon’s market position in the book retail space. Which AFAIK they got fair and square; it’s a whole lot easier and a better experience overall to be able to go to Amazon, search for a book or type of book, find new, used, digital, hardback, paperback, etc… options for whatever book I choose, buy it and have it show up a few days later, or almost immediately on my Kindle.
This is light-years better than having to go to a Barnes & Noble, wander around trying to figure out what section the book I’m looking for is in, find out they don’t have it, or that the category I’m looking for has 2 books in it, or only paperback or whatever.
AFAIK, they’re not doing Microsoft-style screwing around of their brick and mortar competitors by virtue of their market position, they’re simply out-competing them.
Not exactly. I think when it concerns the availability of information, monopolies or near monopolies can be a problem even if there are no unfair business practices, simply because it gives private corporations too much power.
Hopefully LHoD will explain it better, I’m not good at putting things into words.
Not close to fair and square. I’m having trouble finding info on it, but back in the late nineties, IIRC, Amazon was pricing books below wholesale costs, knowing that they could afford to lose a few billion dollars a year if it meant they’d drive a lot of brick-and-mortar bookstores out of business and could then control the marketplace more effectively. The Author’s Guild has come out against them for price-control schemes. Ursula Le Guin has weighed in.
See also: Wal-Mart’s earlier pricing practices:
AND
This stuff is execrable on its face, and is separate and distinct from wielding outsized influence in deciding whether or not to carry a particular product.
In this case, were there other books – if so, which, and how many – that were discontinued (even if only temporarily) at the same time as the extant volume ?
If so, was it tied to profitability or ideology. If the latter, then maybe bringing market pressure to bear on Amazon is an effective means of encouraging them to curb the practice.
There used to be clear channel AM radio stations that had outsized reach in relation to the competition. But nobody said that Nabisco had an inalienable right to advertise Nilla Wafers on those clear channel stations.
I have lots of issues with the Behemoth Tech Firms, but this isn’t really one of those issues.
I’m not seeing how having control of their own pricing is anti-competitive. It sounds like for decades publishers have held a lot of power of the pricing of their books over the retailers, and Amazon has just flipped that on its head. Turnabout is fair play, I’d say. I can’t think of other industries where the retailer isn’t allowed to set their own pricing, etc… I doubt any publishers are dictating to Wal-Mart what they can charge for their books either.
Anyway, books aren’t special. They’re just like any other retail item, despite what authors and publishers would like to think, and I’m pretty sure a lot of this is just backlash at books being treated just like wrenches, underwear or bars of soap.
You are dead to me.
As I said in the other thread, what is being seen is society growing up and realizing that there are certain viewpoints that are inherently so toxic that they belong in the dust bin of history. And companies are rejecting the toxicity as being non-profitable (at least), and potentially anti-profitable (due to backlash). For some reason, social conservatives claim that these are their voices, and to me that says a lot about the kind of world in which they want us to live.
Freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak without fear of governmental reprisal. It does not entitle you to an audience, and it does not entitle you to a market. If your ideas as so repugnant that nobody wants to market them, then you might have to settle for screeching tired and (thankfully) dying ideas on the street corner. Just remember, you cannot force anyone to stop and listen to you.
Yes. They have far more influence over Christian publishing than Amazon has on any publisher.
Anyone remember in the mid 1990s when parental advisory labels were slapped onto CD cases and places like Wal-Mart refused to stock them? We were having similar discussions back then about what impact the largest retailer might have on what artists were able to say. I don’t really have any useful answers here. Wal-Mart wasn’t forced to stock anything they didn’t want to stock and that was the right decision. If Amazon doesn’t wish to “stock” certain items that’s they’re right as well. But when such a large retailer does something like this it’s not unwise to be a bit wary of what they might decide not to stock next.
My guess is that if Amazon were to truly go the route of banning things that are actually popular, then all they would do is create a successful niche market.
So, even given any truth to your assertion, your solution is to have the government tell them what they must sell?
It would be better to break up the monopolies and provide alternatives. But for something like Twitter, it would be feasible to insist they don’t ban any speech the government isn’t allowed to ban.
So a suggestion, DemonTree:
- If you really want to talk about the negative effects of Amazon on the marketplace of ideas, don’t base your OP off yet another transphobic garbage book. I don’t give a shit if you think it’s neither transphobic nor garbage, swap in whatever label you’d put on that book instead; read the room. If you use a transphobic garbage book (or a transphobic garbage blog) as your cite, even if you try to be all sneaky about it, folks are gonna notice, and your thread is gonna be about that garbagy choice, not about the negative effects of Amazon on the marketplace of ideas.
- If you choose a different cite for your OP, maybe try making it not from the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party for fuck’s sake. Maybe even do like ten seconds of due diligence on your link to make sure it’s accurate.
There’s an interesting discussion to have about this subject, but you keep fucking it up.
[Asking sincerely] So, no such animal as a liberal Christian bookstore? Hmm…
Why don’t you start the discussion if you don’t like my examples? I don’t know what other ideas so-called progressives wish to ban discussion of; probably nothing you’d like any better. It’s kind of inherent to free speech that no one wants to ban the approved and uncontroversial ideas.
I just heard about the Covid book in passing, and apparently the info is either wrong or out of date.