Amazon Removes Anti-Vaccine Movies After CNN Inquiry (cnn.com) 362
"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.
Not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You are absolutely correct. However, the real issue here is not the people that already believe this bullshit but the people that may be inclined to believe bullshit by a spreader of said bullshit.
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.
A good start but I think we should go one further and show how much money is made by "big pharma" from each kid that gets sick from these diseases and then claim they founded the anti-vax movement. ;)
Re:Not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It probably won't get their attention: they are blind to reason. They will just think the film is propaganda and either not watch it or do so but use twisted logic to disregard it. People believe the Earth is flat, so believing vaccines are bad for you is a far easier delusion to maintain. The only thing that might change their minds is if their kids die or are debilitated by the diseases they are failing to vaccinate them against. Their current belief system has little of any obvious repercussions on themselves, so it's easy to continue the self deception.
Re: (Score:2)
it just makes the people who already believe in this hunker down because now they believe it's an even bigger conspiracy.
I've never met an anti-vaxxer who wasn't already as hunkered down as humanly possible. Once you get to this stage you have given up on all sense of logic and have firmly planted yourself in the realm of highly extreme anti-establishment and anti-science.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that will get their attention.
The lord works in mysterious ways. No seriously I know of an anti-vaxxer who had one of her children die, and she's still 100% anti-vax. When the news about her broke in the local newspaper she also complained that she doesn't understand why everyone thinks she's a horrible person for doing something "she believes in".
These people are in a different world. Their brains don't tick right.
Re: (Score:2)
The lord works in mysterious ways. No seriously I know of an anti-vaxxer who had one of her children die, and she's still 100% anti-vax. When the news about her broke in the local newspaper she also complained that she doesn't understand why everyone thinks she's a horrible person for doing something "she believes in".
These people are in a different world. Their brains don't tick right.
That's not that weird, It's just sunk cost fallacy, which is illogical but normal human nature. Someone's invested so much into an idea that, in their mind, it has to be justified.
It's part of what keeps victims paying in advance fee fraud. It's part of what can keep otherwise competent people following a doomed course on a failing project.
You can't have much more invested in an idea than to have lost a child to i t. It's not surprising that someone can't face accepting that they've done so unnecessarily.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah you've hit it. The woman with the dead child is the very one that is NEVER going to admit she's wrong because then she'd be force to confront the fact that her beliefs killed her child.
Re:Not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
it just makes the people who already believe
It's not the people you already you need to worry about. It's the ones who don't believe but who are receptive to this kind of crap. It doesn't even have to turn them into true believers to cause harm. It just has to sow doubt / fear / distrust so they don't get shots and put their children and others at risk of serious harm or death
Amazon and social media sites don't have to stop hosting antivax (though that would be nice), but there is no reason either that they should give it due prominence. If someone searches for vaccine information, then the science, evidence based information should appear before any antivax stuff. Bury the antivax results where they belong. There is no reason either for Amazon, or social media services to actively promote the antivax through suggestions, keywords, targeted ads etc.
If major websites actively did that then eventually this brain damage would be contained. There would always be true believers but it would not be a mainstream belief. So yes it could work, providing the likes of Amazon grew a pair and actually did something.
Re:Not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why is it only now becoming a big problem? This kind of material has existed for decades but was hard to find and access. Yet suddenly the movement is taking off again. What is your explanation?
The reality is that it's become a big monkey maker for some people, who have figured out how to push it. Where as previously no publisher or movie theatre would have given then a platform, Amazon and YouTube decided they wanted to be the new platforms but that any kind of moderation probably wasn't necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mistake people calling attention to something for an increase in that thing, especially when no one was really looking at it before.
Re: (Score:3)
They could equally well interpret it as being God's will, that he wanted some new angels or was testing their faith or something.
Like that dude who applied for a lot of jobs and was told not to look back but he did and was assaulted by a pillock.
People watched it. Just like all the other BS docs (Score:2)
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
A mistake... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Then there's "Root Cause" (Score:2)
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... [todaysrdh.com]
Should the anti-vaxxing pieces have been removed? Tough call.
Show anti-vaxxers how disease affects victims (Score:2)
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 [youtu.be], because he was disabled by polio when he was a child. Tell them that when he trav
Just what we need..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI being forced to publish something is just as dangerous to free speech as being forced to not publish something.
Re:Just what we need..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, Berkeley was literally the place the free speech movement started, you stupid sonofabitch.
And yes, forcing someone to publish something is as bad as being forced not to publish something. We're not talking about prior restraint here. This was a letter from an elected representative to a CEO showing concern that a product could be knowingly hurting people. There's no law, no regulation, no compulsion. Jeff Bezos got the letter and said, "OK, good point. Fuck anti-vaxxers. Let them go on Infowars and spread their bullshit. I don't have to carry them in my store."
Re: (Score:2)
Berkeley was literally the place the free speech movement started
Sure it was.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, yeah, back when the Constitutional Convention was going on in Philly and California was a Spanish colony, Berkeley is where it all began.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Jeff Bezos got the letter and said, "OK, good point. Fuck anti-vaxxers. Let them go on Infowars and spread their bullshit. I don't have to carry them in my store."
A thousand times this.
I don't quite get how our Slashdot Fringer crowd seems to think that they can force people to carry things they don't want to carry. The same people would be wailing and moaning if someone infringed upon their freedom to say and do what they want.
If its such a bellwether of free thinking, perhaps our fringers can rent server space and disseminate this forbidden knowledge. The Slashifreedoms or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
And as a private enterprise he's not obligated to host nazi propaganda either. In fact there's very few things he is obligated to do.
Re: Just what we need..... (Score:3)
"as a private enterprise he's not obligated to host nazi propaganda"
You're suggesting they will stop hosting forced-vax nazi propaganda?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it does:
https://smile.amazon.com/Mein-... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman you have there... Would be a shame if something happened to it.
Re: Just what we need..... (Score:2)
What kind of assholr would give people saline instead of a vaccine?
Oh, right, a homeopath.
Re:Just what we need..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to somebody with smallpox or polio or cervical cancer from HPV. Or the family of someone who died in one of the recent measles outbreaks.
Too bad there isn't a vaccination against people who think that accepting study after replicated study - thousands of them- that show vaccines are effective and safe is somehow, "thinking in lockstep".
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to somebody with smallpox or polio or cervical cancer from HPV. Or the family of someone who died in one of the recent measles outbreaks.
Sign me up. Do you have a family that is advocating the use of violence to foece people to use a certain modern technology? I'll call them out on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The first vaccine was developed in 1796. Does that qualify as "modern technology" to you?
Re:Just what we need..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations don't have power over what you can say or hear. Give it a try: open your mouth and say something vile and you will find the words coming out of your mouth without Google or Amazon or anyone else preventing you.
Corporations aren't obliged to buy and re-sell your particular brand of idiocy, however.
Re:Just what we need..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations don't have power over what you can say or hear.
If your video isn't on Youtube, does it really exist? Our public square today is dominated by corporations. It's foolish to say otherwise. We have moved on from the era of soap boxes on the street. Imagine in the old days if Ma Bell had the ability to listen in to every phone call and was ordered by management to disconnect calls that opposed the war in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
If your video isn't on Youtube, does it really exist?
It could be worse. What if your video were on NBC?
This makes sense in theory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People should be free to not wear a seatbelts, and not vaccinate their offspring. To deny this freedom allows more and more of the latter types to reproduce.
If you don't use your seatbelt, you endanger yourself. If you and enough of your hippie-mom friends don't vaccinate, you endanger those around you.
Re: Just what we need..... (Score:2)
Yes but the problem is that you think you know what's right.
I remember growing up thinking that frying with butter was "bad" and that frying in corn oil was "good". Now we know the opposite is true.
Irony.
Re: (Score:3)
Measles, mumps, and chicken pox can be life threatening. Tetanus can be life threatening.
You accuse me of "half-truths and misinformation", but you don't point out either of those from my post.
No offense, but you sound like a drooling moron.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Amazon/Google/Facebook have been doing that for years already. This isn't the first or even 101 thing they have censored, nor will it be the last.
Re: (Score:2)
the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear.
That's funny because I rarely use amazon and don't use Google or Facebook. Somehow they have failed to control what I think see and hear.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but other people have votes -and theirs count just as much as yours. And votes lead to laws, and laws do affect you.
Snapnumpty only have to convince one person and they've cancelled you out. Two, and they're ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but other people have votes -and theirs count just as much as yours. And votes lead to laws, and laws do affect you.
Are they going to pass laws to force me to use Amazon/Google/Facebook? Nope. Could they pass laws to restrict content on the internet? Yeah, that have never gone well.
Your argument lacks teeth but it's great for scaring idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suppose they couldn't possibly pass laws about anything else other than tech or that could affect you. *eyeroll*
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is a private company. Every day, it chooses what it will and won't sell -- it's terms of service explicitly say it reserves the right to reject content for a very wide range of reasons including simply that it finds something "objectionable". Are you saying that's wrong? Should it be obliged to carry items it doesn't want to sell, just to make you happy? Why should it act against its own perception of its commercial interests just to satisfy your bizarre desire to treat it as some kind of national pu
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to extreme capitalism and thanks for playing!
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody googles for vaccines, then all the antivax brain damage should be about 10 pages down.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The usefulness of vaccines and the understanding of that fact is hardly a fascist demand for all only being allowed to think in one way.
Where do we draw the lines in the war on truth? Should we allow blatantly false information on economic competitors? Should say Tesla be allowed to post false statistics on Ford, claiming they are killing people?
The stats are in, the data is real. Vaccines prevent illness and death in children. This is not political opinion, this is fact.
In the end, Amazon is almost
Re: (Score:2)
I genuinely cannot tell if you are being stupid or ironic with your spelling of the final word in your sentence. What is it Reacher likes to say? "Hope for the best, plan for the worst".
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it.
I think it was Orwell who warned against using a word in writing that you've overheard the grown-ups saying.
Re: (Score:3)
It will be like Vegas: so long as there's a buffet with crab legs, people won't care what is being done to them.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be like Vegas: so long as there's a buffet with crab legs, people won't care what is being done to them.
WHAT? No shrimp?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that you seem to regard a theory as a sort of infectious agent-- something which floats around in the ether and cause previously healthy brains to become afflicted.
You can try to restrict "wrong" ideas all you want. Alternately (a better idea) you can try to combat "wrong" ideas through persuasion and reasoned argument. At the end of the day, no matter what you do, there are going to be some individuals who are going to believe in things that are simply wrong or crazy. 1% (more or less)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about changing any ones mind but trying to prevent the conspiracy theories from spreading.
It is more about Amazon protecting their butts against the coming lawsuits.
One of these Anti-Vaxxer parents is going to lose a child, have an epiphany about how they were mislead, and sue the platforms where they got their information. Probably within the next 5 years.
It will be complicated, between sympathy for the poor child, and widespread desire for the parent to be jailed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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 noth
Re: (Score:2)
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 faili
Re: (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
Should say "work", not "look"
Re:Freedom! Oh no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 oppre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pr
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Da, comrade we do.
You have been a good little slodier, so go and collect your rubles from uncle Vlad.
Proshchay!
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That clearly follows because the word, - nay, the very concept - didn't exist prior to 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same vein, SS actions and Jewish suppression were completely legal in Nazi Germany too.
Re: Freedom! Oh no (Score:2)
Most of the great crimes against humanity in the 20th century were fully lawful. Many of them were indeed mandatory under the law.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Freedom! Oh no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:anti-vaccine is a cult (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the only way to stop a cult is to remove all members from existence.
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.
Great. Have at it. Rational persuasion is fair game. But at least you won't be trying to "remove all members from existence" as the OP darkly suggested.
And BTW, many christian denominations (and other religions) have reconciled science with belief.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Specifically, Christofascists are much more common in the US than any of the people you try and whattabout.
You do know that's all the same Old Testament bullshit, yes? Fundamentalist jews, too.
You're a whiney, butthurt Christianist.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then your community needs to act, not the federal government because my community isn't (as) stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adam Schiff isn't a member of the government. Christ, don't you know even basic civics?
Re:Disturbing trend (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Because if you don't have the right to sell your free speech works for money then you don't have any kind of free speech at all. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Because Amazon Marketplace has become the dominant player in the book selling universe. Not a monopoly, but certainly the largest single player.
You don't have to be a monopoly to be regulated as such by the government. Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when the government forced them to decouple IE from Windows.
Similarly, the inability to being able to sell your book on Amazon Marketplace (not Amazon) would curtail any book seller.
Listen to the Planet Money podcast exactly about this sort of thing: https://www. [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Conversely, why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced not to carry a product they want to sell?
Imagine a small country town in the south. There's a small bookstore, and it sells books that are pro-abortion. The local newspaper calls them out on this. The mayor strolls by and tells the owner he's disappointed in them. Pastors tell their congregations that they shouldn't support businesses that promote abortion. The store stops carrying the books. Everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There exists exactly 0% legitimate anti-vaccine content in these movies and/or books. The information that there are people that are allergic to certain vaccines or that there exists health conditions that may prevent some people from safely receiving vaccines will be given to you by your real doctor when you talk to him/her about vaccinating your child. That information is not hidden.
Actually I do think that hindering the spread of these "documentaries" will have an affect since the anti-vaxxers are fortun
NO. (Score:2)
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 tru