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.
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.
Wow. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Let's try information and education instead, hm'kay?
Sure, next up I'll try talking some fundamentalist christians out of the existence of god. Surely scientific methods and facts will sway their opinions.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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"
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"
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
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
These conspiracy theories destroy lives.
An old friend of mine who had always been a bit gullible , when his father was sick from Melanoma, convinced his father to stop the chemo and radiotherapy and instead start on "miracle minerals", aka drinking bleach. The poor old guy died in incredible agony , and its not clear it was the cancer that got him in the end, as he died of liver failure, a common outcome of drinking bleach.
Last thing I heard he had nearly hospitalized his wife in a beating beause she had their todler vaccinated.
These beliefs can destroy peoples lifes. And we can pontificate all we want about these hypothetical scenarios , but the material circumstances in front of our eyes are people being convinced of dangerously stupid ideas leading to horrific outcomes.
Do yourself a favor and do a google image search on Black Salve injuries, then come back and tell me if you think civil society should not intervene
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
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?
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.
What a shit attempt at trolling. 1/10.
I'm atheist and I agree with GP - the majority of the worlds muslims are further to the right than the KKK. Why call out the less-extreme forms of religion, but not the extreme ones?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.