Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Removes Anti-Vaccine Movies After CNN Inquiry (cnn.com)
"Amazon has apparently started removing anti-vaccine documentaries from its Amazon Prime Video streaming service," reports CNN:
The move came days after a CNN Business report highlighted the anti-vaccine content available on the site, and hours after Rep. Adam Schiff wrote an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, saying he is concerned "that Amazon is surfacing and recommending" anti-vaccination books and movies....
Amazon did not respond to questions about why the films are no longer available on Prime Video.
However, while some anti-vaccine videos are gone from the Prime streaming service, a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers... Amazon also had not removed some anti-vaccine books that CNN Business had previously reported on, which users searching the site could mistake for offering neutral information accepted by the public health community.
Amazon did not respond to questions about why the films are no longer available on Prime Video.
However, while some anti-vaccine videos are gone from the Prime streaming service, a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers... Amazon also had not removed some anti-vaccine books that CNN Business had previously reported on, which users searching the site could mistake for offering neutral information accepted by the public health community.
Sadly the only way to stop a cult is to remove all members from existence.
I don't like the idea of a bookstore being pressured into removing books on a given subject.
I'm not convinced the proper response to books containing dangerous misinformation is removal.
While I don't agree with the anti-vaccine crowd, the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear. Having everyone think in lockstep is far more dangerous than the anti-vaccine movement imho.
Looking forward to those liberal book burnings. Maybe we can resuming burning people at the stake.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
As for burning at the stake -- the 17th century called, and they'd like to invite you to a barbecue.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This type of thing never works, it just makes the people who already believe in this hunker down because now they believe it's an even bigger conspiracy. If you want to get people to stop believing in this, just make a pro-vaccine movie. Only you don't fill in full of scientists, reason and logic. Go film some of the anti-vaxxers whose children got sick with perfectly preventable diseases. Make sure to really capture the suffering of those poor children and the misery of the dumb-fuck parents. Go to the corners of the earth where polio still exists to show them the horrors of that. I think that will get their attention.
Sure, it's completely legal for Amazon to do so - however, in general we should be wary of restricting any speech or sharing of information - right or wrong. You want to ensure a virulent idea survives? Persecute it so that those who adhere to it have a cause to support.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is the most compelling argument for the anti-vaxxers I've ever heard, and I've been listening to their crap for years. There's nothing like heavy-handed censorship to make anyone wonder, what truth exactly are they trying to hide?
However, Adam Schiff did write a letter to Amazon requesting information. This may be grandstanding, but there is certainly the potential that Congress might try to pass legislation to restrict anti-vaccine content. You may want to reconsider your comment.
What topics are next?
Movies about faith? Faith groups and cults can help with a long list of movies and books they want less recommended.
Any books and movies that are too sinful?
Movies about the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests?
German history and culture?
Do movies about free Taiwan get that surfacing and recommending to movies on Communist China?
Do we still get to find 1984?
Will movies on Catalonia get surfacing and recommending to movies about Spain?
No protest movies for France?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1) Censoring anti-vaccine content only fuels conspiracy theories. This may drive the content off of Amazon, but it won't stop the spread of misinformation.
2) I'm concerned that legitimate "anti-vaccine" content might be removed along with the misinformation. Some people are allergic to certain vaccines. Other health conditions may prevent some people from safely receiving vaccines. And vaccines do have side effects, though autism most certainly isn't one of them. I certainly don't trust automated systems to distinguish between misinformation and medically accurate discussion about things like allergic reactions to vaccines and other side effects.
Freedom of speech.
.... big g o v.
Freedom of the press.
The freedom to publish.
The freedom to watch a movie and review it.
The freedom to make a movie and have it sold?
After an open letter from
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This is the most compelling argument for the anti-vaxxers I've ever heard, and I've been listening to their crap for years. There's nothing like heavy-handed censorship to make anyone wonder, what truth exactly are they trying to hide?
The truth that sending your un-vaxxed kid to the same school as mine puts everyone at risk. Herd immunity is effective, but it breaks down if too many individuals are not innoculated. Educate yourself on the debunked claim that vaccinations cause autism, and join the rest of us who want to protect ourselves as well as everyone else.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S WEBSITES, MORON. Learn this fact, accept it, and pull your head from your Libertarian moron's asshole.
Aren't you an apologist for a traitor who restricts what and which reporters can report about his administration for fear they turn up evidence or a direct verbatim admission of a crime?
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
The poster you replied to didn't mention the 1st Amendment.
Just because corporate thought control is legal, that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
What content will congress like to restrict next AC?
Right to repair? The import of computer parts and how to repair?
Books on the math of DRM and crypto?
Tax information?
Books and movies on the lie detector tests?
Anti war movies and books?
Books by whistleblowers about the history of the mil/security services?
Movie reviews in books that are too political and that make a movie not sell?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the same vein, SS actions and Jewish suppression were completely legal in Nazi Germany too.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
The poster you replied to didn't mention the 1st Amendment.
Fair point. But (s)he did mention "Freedom! Oh no" in the subject, implying it was an attack on the First Amendment.
Just because corporate thought control is legal, that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
I'm with you there. But I don't think that a company choosing which books to sell or not sell constitutes "thought control."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Then your community needs to act, not the federal government because my community isn't (as) stupid.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Think about it.
Why do we want to convince stupid people to have kids that will survive to breeding age? Makes no sense.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
Yeah, that's right! Because Amazon is a private corporation, not some clandestine government front for unconstitutional activities.
An open gov letter to help corporate control along?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
however, in general we should be wary of restricting any speech or sharing of information
Just as we should be wary of forcing people to publish others' speech.
You want to ensure a virulent idea survives? Persecute it so that those who adhere to it have a cause to support.
Apparently not
Then your community needs to act, not the federal government because my community isn't (as) stupid.
Translation: I've got mine, so piss off, Feds.
That works great, until someone from "my" community shows up in "yours" with measles. What then?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I don't agree with banning anything, but it is hardly "safe" questioning they are doing, it is the exact opposite.
The issue is they take out others too. not just themselves.
There are legitimate ways in which vaccines can fail, such mutating into an active, virulent form of the virus. Or, it can contain toxic additives, such as Mercury.
However, a milligram of Mercury injected into the bloodstream is unlikely to cause autism. The old fashioned vaccines were made of virus grown in chicken eggs. Chicken eggs are not toxic to humans.
Shut up and make me a faggot cake.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
Yeah, legal or not, people who don't respect freedom of speech still suck. That's the 79th amendment.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No he is saying that medicine can't be 100% trusted. The whole industry in the US at least has given us antibiotic resistant stuff like MRSA through over-prescription of antibiotics and an opiod epidemic through the over prescription of painkillers.
Vaccines are produced in batches and can vary in efficacy across different batches. There are rare, but still existant, cases of vaccines either giving the disease the vaccine protects against to people or causing severe side effects. I am not an anti-vaxxer and, to be perfectly honest, I don't know or have personally met irl anyone who is. That doesn't contradict the points raised though.
They need to be given every disease that vaccines prevent and handed a Darwin Award and sent to an uninhabited island north of Canada and be done with them.
That will give the world many benefits:
1. eradication of diseases that should have been gone decades ago.
2. Alt-right dipshits will be destroyed
3. As will the SJW morons
4. The gene pool will be clean and tidy
Fuck antivaxxers with a rusty chainsaw
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
Who said anything about first amendment?
It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
What is this in response to?
But I don't think that a company choosing which books to sell or not sell constitutes "thought control."
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
The books/videos were pulled hours after they received a letter from a congressman, which was an implied threat of government retaliation.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
In a copororatist system, it does not matter who is censoring you. Corporations can buy whatever laws they want. America certainly has such a system. The real question is why are you on Slashdot defending the right of billionaires to suppress us from speaking, even if we're wrong? You work for a social media management company, don't you?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Oooh, ooh, I've got another idea for how you can get a virulent idea to survive beside persecuting it. Wanna hear?
You can get a virulent idea to survive by promoting it too!
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
Book burning is also completely legal under the First Amendment. You can burn books all you want.
So thank you for sharing that you support book burning.
You show exactly why these 'documentaries' are so dangerous when you spew their false claims as facts.
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
Invent something more ridiculous to replace it?
Personally I have little sympathy for those pissed off about all those suspicious of vaccination. There is more blame to be placed than just on the shoulders of crackpots.
There is way too much regulatory capture / corruption / lobbying / scope creep from drug industry spending big to try and make shit mandatory coupled with widespread culture of dismissiveness when it comes to filing of adverse reaction reports.
The government has only itself to blame for failing to act beyond reproach with resulting loss of legitimacy / confidence being entirely predictable consequence.
I mean WTF does anyone expect people to believe in an era where regulatory capture is pervasive? The FDA was bad enough... today we live in crazy land where even TLAs like the motherfucking DEA have been corrupted by industry from the top down.
"Educate yourself on the debunked claim that vaccinations cause autism, and join the rest of us who want to protect ourselves as well as everyone else."
The only positive evidence I've ever seen that vaccines do anything except save a bunch of lives, is this disgusting censorship by the gatekeepers of products, knowledge, and media. If you want to start banning shit that's wrong and harmful, there's a whole bunch of religious texts you need to get after first- a number equal to "all the books promoting a faith you don't believe in" (which could well be *all* of them). Might also go after the communist manifesto, communism managed to beat all religions combined for "total humans slain as a result" in merely a century, definitely no small feat given that humans have been fighting religious wars basically forever.
If something is true, why does it need corporations and governments punishing any who dissent? A quick glance at history reveals that those who fight to suppress a contrary view are usually fighting the truth. Sure, not always. But usually.
It was there because it was low cost. Whomever made it sold it for very cheap to get out their message. Just like all the UFO documentaries. People are choosing to watch it so amazon was showing it.
While Amazon doesn't have to sell anything they don't want to I think it's wrong of them. To editorialize means you are biased which in turn gives reason for people to distrust you. If you sensor some things and not others it henceforth means you endorse them. It's a huge can of worms. And just like banned books it lends them credibility deservedly so or not. If Bezos' really disagreed enough to do something than then it would have been better to do a counter documentary himself rather than shutting them down or simply posted a ghosted editorial.
As far as the subject matter itself.... there is a modicum of credibility to the issue. There are diminishing returns vs risk. Some people will die in the lottery of rare reactions. Who gets to decide what reasonable risk is? You can document the numerous people dying from the disease on one end and on the other you have the few children that die or other are supposedly otherwise harmed from a bad reaction to a vaccine. You have parents on both ends questioning their decisions in 20/20 hindsight. Beyond that there are people that choose to live a more natural/primitive way of life.
Firemen whose job it is to destroy badthink literature.
Only, today's are digital firemen; Mr. Bradbury hadn't thought that far ahead back when he published it in 1953.
These are people who still believe in the Russian collusion conspiracy, despite zero evidence, or even logical rationale.
Amazon should not need to figuratively burn these things, but they do need a proper classification system, where hocus-pocus, fiction and fantasy are clearly marked as such.
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "thoughtcrime" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
Crank movements existed long before the internet and the ability that gives to reach a huge audience with little effort. They still had their free speech then and they still have it now. They can still self-publish pamphlets, speak in the town square promoting their crankery. They can even set up a website and there are even webhosts dedicated to hosting literally anything protected under the first amendment (such as Dreamhost, no affiliation except being a happy customer).
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
That's the most ludicrously over-entitled reading I think I've ever heard of free speech. No, you don't have the right to force others to help you monetize your cranky views.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
No it doesn't. There has never been a time when private vendors have ever stocked all books regardless of their content. To claim it "sets a precedent" is to ignore all of history.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right. That clearly follows because the word, - nay, the very concept - didn't exist prior to 1776.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is no freedom to have something sold. At least not by someone else.
You have to sell it yourself if you want that. This is your freedom.
FORCING someone else to sell something for you is infringing on their freedom.
If you want someone else to sell your stuff for you, you'll have to come to an agreement with them first.
Invent something more ridiculous to replace it?
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc, but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
Should say "work", not "look"
Forced-vax nazis sure do enthusiastically endorse corporate censorship of wrongthink.
Most of the great crimes against humanity in the 20th century were fully lawful. Many of them were indeed mandatory under the law.
Da, comrade we do.
You have been a good little slodier, so go and collect your rubles from uncle Vlad.
Proshchay!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yet they sell Mein Kampf without hesitation.
Strangely enough, I know several college educated people who believe vaccines cause autism. Worse yet, as the parent of an autistic child numerous people just assume that I believe that nonsense as well.
So if we get Amazon to quit selling all the homo fag books, you wouldnt be upset?
I'm quite serious about that title. This is the year that wider society finally puts and end to the intellectual equivalent of drinking the waste water used to wash an ebola corpse.
The "marketplace of ideas" is one of the most damaging ideas to come out of the Western world in the late 20th century. The idea basically says that spreading terrible ideas and lies is beneficial or at least harmless as long as it can be debated. The world we live in today is its disproof: It was supposed to elevate the truth and instead a large fraction of the population intellectually lives in a fictional universe while physically inhabiting our reality. Debating these ideas simply spreads them to vulnerable people while having no effect on those who are more swayed by reason and facts.
This doesn't mean a regression to actual government-backed censorship, but rather people using their freedoms to choose not to enable the spread of these ideas, rather than choosing to enable their spread.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That reasoning only works if these so called documentaries actually contained valid questions but the truth is that they are nothing more than pure slander and misinformation that cause actual harm to people (mostly children).
So CNN and Amazon are the Federal Government now?
"it just makes the people who already believe in this hunker down "
Right, and you realize how crazy hunkered down people act and sound? The crazier they look, the less likely people are to listen to them and the more they will see them for what they are... Crazy evangelists.
Not sure where the attribution should go to, maybe Mencken. "Freedom of the press only belongs to those who can afford one." And although it may not exactly apply in this instance, it's always a good idea not to confuse the First Amendment rights with censorship. While Amazon may not be committing a First Amendment offense, it is clearly censorship, for good or evil.
Funny. Most of those anti-vaxxer books are "homo fag books".
They appeal to people who feel disenfranchised by the system. To a victim complex where alternative and arguably unhealthy lifestyle choices are oppressed by the man and big wealthy corporations. Which not quite coincidentally is exactly what most (college educated) SJW crap is about.
They appeal to feel happy gay time alternative live natural lifestyles with essential oils and homoeopathic shit. Which again is not quite coincidentally what a lot of fags are about.
Maybe because if you don't vaccinate your kid, my kid could die from a preventable disease?
You want to ensure a virulent idea survives? Persecute it so that those who adhere to it have a cause to support.
Your mental tendency to identify with the perceived martyrdom of a purported victim is a weakness in your reasoning capacity.
You really need to escape your juvenile thinking.
He doubles down on his calls for censorship. In this example he attempts to try and make it reasonable sounding, but in the past he exclusively has called for censorship of gays, blacks and women, hence the name change I gave him.
He explained to me that censoring those specific people shouldn't even be counted in stats about censorship because they don't count as real people.
Don't listen to this asshole. He only wants people like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden (old white guys) to be allowed to speak publicly.
But, when we have limited outlets for speech the way youtube controls the majority of online video expression and amazon controls online retail/book distribution then the waters get murky.
I bet you work for one
I respectfully disagree with this action. It is not the place of governments, libraries, or bookstores (including Amazon) to police content. The slippery slope argument is very appropriate here.
Netflix removed "Root Cause", which blames root canals for a host of medical problems, due to complaints from dentist groups. I saw it before that happened, and while I found it irritating and often flaky, it definitely made me think. Then I found a rebuttal, and I decided there is real reason for concern.
https://www.todaysrdh.com/root...
Should the anti-vaxxing pieces have been removed? Tough call.
No, only unvaxed kids. If your kids are vaccinated, it doesn't matter whether any other kid has measles or not.
(and no, it's not a "religion"). Even among believes "Young Earth" creationists and folks who believe the Noah flood happened are declining.
Education works, but for it to work it needs to be fact based.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So everyone seems worried about the propaganda machine from both sides and what is being ignored is where do all these illnesses come from, did you know that just touching household bleach can trigger cancer?, A vaccine doesn't cure anything or promise that you won't get sick, same as non-vaccine.
what we need to work on is building strong immune systems more nutritious food (not just more food), safer chemicals under out sink and much better mindsets.
Any time you run across anti-vaxxers, show them how preventable diseases affected the life of people who did not get vaccinated.
I grew up before vaccination for polio was common, and saw many kids and colleagues who were disabled, ranging from simple limping to having totally non-functional limbs. And those are the lucky ones, who survived the disease. Others died.
Show them examples of that: how Itzhak Perlman walks on stage, because he was disabled by polio when he was a child. Tell them that when he travels he has to get assistance with having his violin and bag carried, because he cannot do so while walking with his crutches.
Go on Google images, and search for "smallpox scars" and show them how their boy or girl will look like if they ever get infected and survive the infection.
If someone makes a video from old footage of all these diseases, it may sway some who are willing to follow the evidence.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Worse: It'll fuel all the anti-vax conspiracy theories.
No, no, it doesn't. No. Not at all. If you think that bookstores haven't dropped books because of content before now, frequently after the sale of those books was brought to their attention by office holding politicians (which you deem an implied threat, but congressmen and women write letters every year about issues everyone knows full well they won't legislate on, their job is to represent the public, which is done through more methods than legislation), you apparently have missed centuries of history.
The people who need to see this movie will never get past the opening title. The be in the lobby demanding refunds.
All this effort to remove anti-vaccine content, makes me wonder what they are trying to hide?
Amazon works with the CIA. This has been known for years.
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
If you believe big pharma doesn't measure human life in profits and will knowingly allow people to DIE if the lawsuits and coverups are far cheaper then you are as gullible as the anti-vaccine crowd.
1) You setup a pattern of acceptable censorship under the guise "think of the children" and it's no different than tyrants use fear and demonization to cover their power grabs.
2) Creating dark areas will attract evil people where they have little risk of exposure. Like gay pedophiles are attracted to highly trusted positions at religious institutions... Improperly dealing with a legit issue (or not) CREATES future problems.
3) people who do not get vaccinated get sick. maybe die. their choice. you don't have to worry, you got the shot and you lucked out on not having side effects that may exist.
4) Yes their children might die. Their bad luck. Their children are more likely to die in a car accident from a cell phone driver... don't see you campaigning on that issue as extremely...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Sun researchers find strange eclipse reading
What you fails to understand is that "the government" might not be in charge much longer.
No you're not because no congressmen have threatened any bookstores. What you're demanding is that congresspeople stop representing their constituents, which is an entirely different thing.
Not sure where the attribution should go to, maybe Mencken. "Freedom of the press only belongs to those who can afford one."
Well said. However, today we have the internet. That levels the playing field quite a bit.
And although it may not exactly apply in this instance, it's always a good idea not to confuse the First Amendment rights with censorship. While Amazon may not be committing a First Amendment offense, it is clearly censorship, for good or evil.
If you were to walk into a Christian bookstore, I doubt you would find any books on Satanism. Is that censorship?
And before someone responds with the inevitable gambit about cakes for gay weddings, I find it distasteful when a baker refuses to make one. However, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Not yet, anyway.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc,
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
What I care about is correcting institutional failures having lead to unnecessary suffering. Loss of legitimacy often translates into human suffering.
Yep,
Riots to prevent a gay man from giving a speech and Megol pretends it didn't happen. Why you ask? Because Megol doesn't consider a gay man to be a human and not deserving of the right of free speech. Therefore he can now claim it didn't happen.
Why is it liberals seem to think gays/blacks/women are not actual humans and when they are censored it isn't even mentioned? I thought liberals stood up for the "oppressed". but it now seems they are the oppressors and just act as if non-white old guys are non-human.
What a disgrace.
It's weird when you always hear the same old story that shutting them out will only validate and strengthen conspiracy nuts. And that the best course of action is to ridicule them.
Sure. It'll validate them. But for people who believe that absence of evidence is evidence of suppression of that evidence, anything can give them validation.
What these geniuses also seem to forget is that only ridicule and nothing else is what got us where we are today.
Why not try something different? Just because it doesn't have a 100% chance to work?
I don't find Adam Sandler funny. Can Amazon remove those movies too?
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
No, you're really not. Because it didn't go down anything like what you're saying. What's happening in practice is that as soon as someone uses their constitutionally-granted free speech to criticise, you lose your shit, your brain shuts down and you start squawking mindlessly about censorship.
What actually happened was this:
A representative wrote an open letter to amazon.
OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING USING FREE SPEECH WILL END FREE SPEECH EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
Oh and drop your "bookstore" narrative. Amazon is accepting money to advertise which puts them in a whole different category and is actively recommending these anti-vax books. A congresscritter has an absolute right to question a company that is doing something demonstrably harmful.
And we don't need pro censorship people trying to fear-silence people into not using their free speech simply because you don't like what you believe they said, not that you could be arsed to even read TFA to find out.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Book burning is also completely legal under the First Amendment
So what? You'll still be arrested for starting a bonfire in your backyard without a permit. Such things aren't allowed without approval. So while you can burn books (assuming it's not enough books to trigger the anti-pollution laws), you're not allowed to start the fire.
You have the right to do or have many things, but there are laws preventing you from completing some of the tasks you need to accomplish in order to reach the original goal. So do those original rights really matter? As a dumb example, you're legally allowed to perform colon hydrotherapy on yourself (flush a lot of water through your ass), but it's illegal to buy any of the supplies to do so unless you get a prescription.
There are still those who sent the Russian collision despite mounting evidence and the entirely expected result for a self-serving lying fraud to betray everything even his own children.
So... You want censorship of government political speech (illegal), in order to prevent censorship of the products docked in a store (inevitable)?
The issue is they take out others too. not just themselves.
That only matters if they take out others at a higher rate than they take out themselves. If they are taking out themselves at a higher rate than they are taking out others, then it's a self-solving problem.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
What does "your loss" even mean in this context? It's not about my loss or your gain. It's about an effective means to counter virulent ideas and specifically counter their spread. Which your proposed solution of reductio ad absurdum patently is not, even though you think it's worked for you.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
Sane rational policy is "pushing the ridiculous to the max", is it? And people dying from exposure to viruses are symptoms and not a problem? Keeping it classy and stupid. Congrats!
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Never mind. What is bollocks is not the idea that TLAs have been bought. What is bollocks is the idea that because some TLAs have sometimes been bought, there is some logical chain that means Amazon should be obliged to sell crocks of shit written by anti-vaxxers. The implication of your raising the fact that TLAs have sometimes been bought is that we shouldn't trust anything they touch. If we don't trust them on vaccines, why trust them on central lines, on whether adenosine is safe and effective, on infection control safeguards, etc etc?
That President who spied on and persecuted media left the office in January, 2017. The current President doesn't like some of the press corp (like the previous President as well), but has not banned any news organization, nor spied on them, not prosecuted them.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
When it comes to speech, piss off Feds should be pretty much your standard response. We're not talking about quarantining antivaccers, that would be, under certain circumstances, be acceptable and in many places (like mine) you can't go with your kids to school or daycare without a vaccine or a doctors reason not to have one.
But as far as education, that's your and your community's primary responsibility. If anti vaccination in your community is reaching deadly numbers a Federal law won't help.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Still hasnt vacinated her 3 year old.
But this is soooo wrong. Its bad enough when the gov censors. But companies doing it?
The right wingers are gettimg suppressed. Now the anti vaxers. Soon itll be something you believe / accept as truth.
I love it when facts are trolls... SJWs at work, safe space invaded by reality and thus reality must be damned!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please Google those two words before spouting off platitudes about vaccination.
Yes, vaccination is good, IF they are safe and effective. Old legislation prevents this from happening.
Many vaccines are neither safe or effective. The immunity they create is the one from legal liability for damages.
As such it is a pharmaceutical company's wet dream. Don't get sucked in.
most YouTube videos are artificially long to meet the 10 minute minimum for advertiser dollars and ranking (it's not a hard minimum, but you're less likely to get monetized if you're under 10). It's actually annoying, since videos often take 10 minutes to say 3 minutes worth of content.
Cut a video down to the punchy, important stuff and with modern compression you can fit it into a few megabytes and email to anyone who asks. Hell, you could host it yourself on a free hosting service as long as you either didn't have too big an audience or you rotated the videos out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they just won't give you a free mega phone.
And I'd like to see folks complaining a bit more about this when it comes to thought control. Pushing propaganda messages by buying up all the media is a lot more like thought control then not platforming somebody's dangerous nonsense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1st Amendment is just a particular implementation of much broader and much more important concept of freedom of speech, stop using it as a bloody reference and shove it up your American ass with your "founding fathers"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You realize that using obscure Russian slang makes you sound like a Russian, right?
Now here I was thinking you were just another pompous, self-satisfied nazi twat... But maaaaaybe you're actually one of Putin's troll army, just _pretending_ to be a nazi twat!!
Are you sure Trump hasn't "spied on them"?
How the Justice Department's Seizure of a Reporter's Email Records Subverts the Free Press
And can you explain to me why you think anything Trump does can be excused with a "But Obama"?
Some of us voted against both of them.
It emerged late Thursday that the Justice Department had secretly seized years of email and phone records of a New York Times reporter in connection with a leak investigation. This marks a clear escalation of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate journalists and their sources. In doing so, it seems that the Justice Department may have violated its own policies for obtaining reporters’ communications — strict standards that are in place because of the importance the Constitution places on freedom of the press.
Yeah, but those cranks aren't going to risk killing anyone with their crankery. Flat earthers, lunar conspiracy theorists, anti-fluoride nutjobs, Russiagaters....none of them are going to possibly kill someone as a side effect of engaging in their conspiracy theory. As opposed to anti-vaxxers, who can kill people with measles, or render them deaf or blind.
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer, and has bought all the town squares? They have been getting into real estate. It's too flippant to say "just go somewhere else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before, in the age where tech companies have established effective monopolies in their market segments.
Speaking of Amazon, it has contracts with the government worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and Bezos sits on a board at the Pentagon. And Amazon was told about these videos by a high ranking Democratic official, in a chamber that was just taken back by the party. So, yeah, this is a free speech issue. And I say that as someone who has complete contempt for antivaxxers.
See above on monopolies. As for antivaxxers, suppressing their speech risks a slippery slope and establishes a bad precedent. So maybe we could tax them. You can smoke cigarettes if you want to, but in most places you will be paying a hefty sin tax that will mitigate some of their costs. So if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, you pay a tax - one that scales with income or assets. You're a single mom in a double-wide? $500 per unvaccinated kid. You're Jenny McCarthy and you want to adopt some kids? $1,000,000 for each one you don't vaccinate.
It may not make it die out, but I don't care if a small subset of people feel they're being "persecuted".
We certainly have the right of free speech to criticize them and their ideas. We can't give in to ideas just because someone plays the victim. At the same time, let's try to be fair about it so they don't have any credible reason to play the victim.
I don't think not selling certain things makes anyone persecuted. Perhaps the poor authors? No, not even them.
>astroturfer
yep, username checks out.
So you are arguing for book burning. I literally had no other arguments, and your desperate deflections into irrelevant topics of "but can you start a bonfire in your backyard" demonstrate that you understand very well why your stance on book burning is utterly unacceptable by modern standards of liberty.
About undocumented migrants? They aren't getting vaccinated, and every measles outbreak seems to happen in a far left "sanctuary" city.
Whoosh.
Just because corporate thought control is legal, that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
But sometimes it does. Case in point, a group spreading lies (yes, anti-vax is a flat out lie, no need to both sides bullshit this) that results in harm to the general population - in this case a measles outbreak.
Which congressmen threatened which bookstores?
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer,
Then buy it from somewhere else like staples or walmart, or the manufacturer directly.
and has bought all the town squares?
If your elected representatives sell off the town squares, democracy is already dead, and you'd be screwed with or without Amazon.
else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before
You don't have a right to an audience. You have a right to speak, and people have a right to listen but you have never, ever had the right to force others to listen or to carry your speech.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "Crank movements" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.