2. More importantly, they're disincentivizing the production of anything that might be seen as controversial b/c publishers have to fear losing a major revenue stream. As A. decides this at will, there is no certainty re this. So better safe than sorry.
- Amazon is not just "a private company, they can do whatever they want". They have too much market power for that. ("with great power...")
- Due to their market power, banning books has two implications:
1. They're making these books less visible & harder to get today.
To clarify:
- The idea that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness is idiotic & not helpful to society.
- But that someone who has this opinion is prevented from stating it publicly is deeply concerning.
- Especially when a private corp decides the bounds of discourse.
The age of corporate ideological censorship has begun.
---
RT @Forbes
Amazon Responds To Republican Sens. On Book Ban, Says Won’t Sell Books That Frame LGBTQ+ Identities As Mental Illness https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/12/amazon-responds-to-republican-sens-on-book-ban-says-wont-sell-books-that-frame-lgbtq-identities-as-mental-illness/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie
https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1370364095510294533
...how it's going...
---
RT @dendricide
@deepfates dropping out of college to draw extremely racist pepe and groyper NFTs
https://twitter.com/dendricide/status/1370423662705307653
RT @deepfates
ᴵ ᵈᵒᶰ'ᵗ ᵏᶰᵒʷ ʷʰᵒ ᶰᵉᵉᵈˢ ᵗᵒ ʰᵉᵃʳ ᵗʰᶤˢ˒ ᵇᵘᵗ ʸᵒᵘ ˢᵃᵗ ᵒᶰ ᵗʰᵉ ᵀʷᶤᵗᵗᵉʳ ʳᵉᵐᵒᵗᵉ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵗᵘʳᶰᵉᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵛᵒˡᵘᵐᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ʷᵃʸ ᵈᵒʷᶰˑ ᶜᵃᶰ ʸᵒᵘ ʰᵉᵃʳ ᵗʰᶤˢ
I wrote a story!!
https://schuldenzucker.com/post/halo/
Observe that we already have anarchy, but at the level of countries rather than individuals.
---
RT @goblinodds
anarchism is best understood imo as social tech
rebuttals like "it doesnt work" are missing the point, of course it doesnt work *we havent invented it yet*
https://twitter.com/goblinodds/status/1369403712444243982