“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
How can we decide what's scientific anymore?
Trust Amazon moderators will do the right thing, of course!
I'm sure Amazon can build a massive team of highly educated unbiased technocrats to carefully parse through the tens of millions of content being added to their services any one day.
There's no way this could fail.
The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. Would you make the same argument about being restricted in what you can say over a private chat service? Over the last decades and especially during the pandemic how people assemble and use their right to free speech has massively shifted.
Before you assume that I hold an strong opinion on this: I don't think I do. I don't know where I want the line to be.
> The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is.
The solution is to not let any one platform get that big and essential as a matter of policy.
For free speech to actually be positive, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty important for that speech to be subjected to some kind of peer review process before it's broadcast widely. We used to have that when broadcasting was more limited and expensive, but by destroying those limits, social media also weakened the peer review.
People are more comfortable with smaller actors making editorial decisions, we need those kinds of decisions, so we need to keep the actors smaller.
Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship.
What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?
No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying.
> Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous.
Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue.
> But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship.
So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them?
It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.
Chariots of the Gods [1] The GMO Deception [2] How to End the Autism Epidemic [3]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken-ebook...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/GMO-Deception-Corporations-Government...
[3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/16...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collion-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp...
Is the usual problem with this.
Have you ever been completely convinced about something that turned out to be entirely wrong? Almost certainly, probably more than a few times. It happens to all of us. And sometimes this happens on a societal scale with things like science and civil rights. Ideas not accepted at the time, attempted silence, but fortunately resisted censorship until history was able to bore them out.
The problem is that there are fewer clearly bullshit things than people think.
Different rules apply when you are a monopoly. Amazon refusing to sell a book is very different from a Mom and Pop shop doing the same.
Who watches the watchmen?
I 100% support restricting distribution of material that is based on conjecture and bullshit info. Especially when that information comes with a for-profit motive. This person can easily put their book for free on their own website if they really feel they have important information to share.
Amazon can decide what goes on their platform. It always baffles me that people think that free speech comes with a right to have an audience. That's not what free speech is.