People can complain that something is bad without calling for the government to ban it. They can even explicitly say that the government shouldn’t ban it, while also saying that the people doing it should stop.

I know your comment wasn't meant to spin off another thread, but I do believe you're touching at something quite significant. We as a society have become way too comfortable with using the government to stop behaviour we don't like, to the point that people automatically jump to that conclusion during political arguments.

This situation quite literally is not using the government. So y’all are complaining about the non-government system working in the way you’d expect it to?

There are surely going to be more voices advocating for removing racist stuff than those arguing to keep it. One side inherently has the advantage. So without the government getting involved, what exactly are y’all suggesting?

Bringing people to our side of the argument. Improving the culture so we're not erasing the past. There's no way around winning the hearts of the people.

Caught on a technicality yet again. I should have said "new type of self regulating market".

Obviously every free market is self regulating, but we never had this mixture of a limited selection in dominating online sellers and the amplifying effect the internet has on any kind of outcry.

The government has nothing to do with my argument. We don't need laws against this (yet), but we should keep an eye out for changes that will push counterculture underground. Dialogue beats suppression any day in my book.

What’s a new type of self-regulating market that doesn’t involve new laws?

We have more selection at our finger tips than any time in history. I guarantee if I wanted those books, I could find them without leaving my desk.

There's a good chance you will never know the books exist in the first place if they are not allowed to be sold on the largest platforms. Surely you are not denying that availability is a factor in exposure?