Ebay offensive material policy - Just the beginning of censorship, already happening? Whats the scoop? 3 3

[Ken Aldred]

8 hours ago, Ride the Tiger said:

Master of Puppets was one of the greatest albums ever. 

Top 5 metal albums of all time for me.  A masterpiece.

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

There's an incorrect assumption that the minority is even more likely to 'complain' about their situation than ever before, because of how 'entitled' we are as a society. This is a truly self-serving observation for the ruling class. Truth is - those marginalized just have a forum to OPENLY express themselves about it. They've ALWAYS not liked it.

In the 70's, if a homosexual or a black man (or woman) or anyone 'different' from what was considered the idealized 'American', were walking down the street and 5 white dudes shouted some slur at them - they maybe wouldn't say anything back or feel they could stand up to themselves for fear of the over powering nature of who was saying it. And if they DID speak out, institutionally they where in trouble. 

NOW, they can go on Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram or wherever and immediately say, "I don't like it!!!" They can attract OTHERS who've felt this marginalization and stand TOGETHER.

This is frightening to the ruling class. They have for centuries in this country been able to say what they wanted, ruled as they wanted, discriminated as they wanted and seen things as they wanted. Institutionally things have evened out to SOME degree, but... Its pretty easy to figure out what means they'd use (are using) to try and counteract it.

Exactly.  

Abused groups don't feel they have to be kicked around and just take it anymore, as options now exist to speak up about the way they get mistreated.  That applies to my autism / Aspergers group as much as it does to ethic or religious discrimination. It's a reason I'd never want to go back to the 70s, or even the 90s, as progress and understanding has been made, but, there's still a lot of majority inflexibility to combat, to go up against with words, even now.   

[Bird]

3 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

Exactly.  

Abused groups don't feel they have to be kicked around and just take it anymore, as options now exist to speak up about the way they get mistreated.  That applies to my autism / Aspergers group as much as it does to ethic or religious discrimination. It's a reason I'd never want to go back to the 70s, or even the 90s, as progress and understanding has been made, but, there's still a lot of majority inflexibility to combat, to go up against with words, even now.   

and if people go a little far in exercising new freedoms that is to be expected

when you are in the majority and the spotlight shines on wrongs done to others you can expect some backlash, it may be out of proportion at times but that is the nature of the beast

I try to be understanding, it helps me control my anger and tendency to judge quickly

[Bookery]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

 

-- But this is what the tin foil hats can't understand ...

-- No one wants to hear how they've been brainwashed...

-- If some nitwits with over active guilt complex's ...

-- I can't take listening to these whiny comic nerds bellyaching...

-- opening the door to these creepy politik dorks sliming their way into the conversation... 

-- But the comic nerd and politik dork will go on ad infinitum...

-- regardless of what Bookery says 'the sky is falling!'. Seriously, it's NOT... 

-- But the comic nerds and the politik dorks? Get a life.

You know, I tried to have a decent debate with you.  So have others.  And you even raise some valid points if you can locate them in your sea of bile.  But every time, I think, okay... I'll grant you that point... you go off on a name-calling rant that belies your true nature, and I say, nah.  Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they are stupid or evil.  You're the one actually boasting about how ignorant and uninformed you are, and then go on and on lecturing others about things you openly admit you know nothing about.  You keep blatantly lying about people's positions, even though they try to correct you multiple times.  You complain endlessly about hyperbole, then write the screed you did above.  I never called you names.  I never misrepresented your viewpoint.  I merely disagreed with some of it... if you weren't so stubborn you'd even see we only differed in matters of degree, not  in overall substance.  You talk about how you can't stand the conversation going on and on, yet you keep returning here.  You're the one that keeps returning to oblique political references, while others have gone out of their way to avoid it.  And since you can't... even once... accurately reflect my positions on any of this, I request most strongly that you refrain from mentioning my name any further in your posts.

[Prince Namor]

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You know, I tried to have a decent debate with you. 

I thought we did.

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

So have others.  And you even raise some valid points if you can locate them in your sea of bile.  But every time, I think, okay... I'll grant you that point... you go off on a name-calling rant that belies your true nature, and I say, nah.  Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they are stupid or evil.  

That's correct. It's when they're stupid or evil that means they're stupid and evil. I never called you that. 

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You're the one actually boasting about how ignorant and uninformed you are, and then go on and on lecturing others about things you openly admit you know nothing about. 

I never claimed to be ignorant OR uninformed. And I don't think I said I admit I know nothing about any of this. 

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You keep blatantly lying about people's positions, even though they try to correct you multiple times.  You complain endlessly about hyperbole, then write the screed you did above.  I never called you names.  I never misrepresented your viewpoint. 

Yes you did.

By the strict standards Namor and others have put forth about the definition of "censorship", nothing has ever been censored in America. 

I never said that. 

And when did I call you a name?

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

I merely disagreed with some of it... if you weren't so stubborn you'd even see we only differed in matters of degree, not  in overall substance. 

I completely see that. Except for one point...

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You talk about how you can't stand the conversation going on and on, yet you keep returning here. 

Umm... that's not what I said...

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

You're the one that keeps returning to oblique political references, while others have gone out of their way to avoid it. 

You mean 'others have gone out of their way to shield' it.

44 minutes ago, Bookery said:

And since you can't... even once... accurately reflect my positions on any of this, I request most strongly that you refrain from mentioning my name any further in your posts.

But I did accurately reflect on your positions. Wasn't your whole premise that 'this will lead to more and worse forms of censorship'????

[HuddyBee]

10 hours ago, ttfitz said:

I only wish to point out that I don't think that the inclusion of private entities is what is stretching the meaning of censorship, as I have agreed that it is possible for a private entity to engage in censorship. It's stretching when you include private entities making the decision on what things they wish to sell.

fair enough 

[Rip]

10 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Yet "Banned Books Week" is a thing highlighting books that have been banned throughout the years.  None of them was banned by the federal government.  At all times these books were available in other places.  But they were censored in specific localities, by certain libraries, by certain school boards, by specific county prosecutors (as what I dealt with, and no, the State of Ohio was not involved at any level, as Namor insinuated).  Yet these books are considered to have been banned / censored nonetheless.

Then you wrote: These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item.

 

I thought by stating - on more than one occasion - that I agreed that a private company can engage in censorship that maybe it would be clear, but I can see not. And I thought by highlighting the two actions in my quote, it would point to exactly what I meant by it being "completely different" (as in the actions being taken are completely different) but I can see not.

Why bring up public vs private? Because it makes a difference - something done by a public institution is judged differently than a private one, largely in the fact that it is difficult for a private entity to "prohibit" something. Prohibit <> not participate.

Let's see if I can illustrate with a couple examples:

1a) Colbert shows a house that arranged Christmas lights in the shape of a [male member]. CBS blurred the image. Censorship (in a great deal due to the fact that you can't switch over to NBC, say, to see an unblurred image)

1b) Ford decided to pull its ads from the Late Show, because they oppose showing outline [male member] Christmas lights regardless of whether it is blurred or not. NOT censorship

2a) You and I are sitting on your front porch (masked and socially distanced, of course), and the government (national, state, local, homeowners association, block captain) says "You can't talk about eBay and the Dr Seuss books." Censorship

2b) You and I are sitting on your front porch, and YOU say, "No talking about eBay and Dr Seuss, I've had enough of that." NOT censorship

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. When a company decides, for whatever reason, to not sell a particular product, and I am kept from buying/selling that product only because I am too lazy to switch my browser from their website to a different one, that's not censorship, that's a business decision that is made each and every day.

 

Ttfitz stated:

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. When a company decides, for whatever reason, to not sell a particular product, and I am kept from buying/selling that product only because I am too lazy to switch my browser from their website to a different one, that's not censorship, that's a business decision that is made each and every day.

So glad you posted this. So from the examples previously, when a local, state, town, school library commits censorship on a book do you think that it makes the people in those locations web browsers not work anymore? Does it stop their cars from still working as well to get the book from a different location? It certainly doesn't effect me in California when I don't live near that location? Did the block captain make your web browser, feet, or car not work?

The examples I used were all examples of famous banned books. I can save Amazon's famous censorship issue removing erotica publishers back in 2013 for later.

Going to again post this below.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/book-banning

Edited March 14, 2021 by Rip

[snitzer]

In general this entire thread focuses on the symptom (eBay reacts for reasons) and not the source (the SPLC affiliate who did the study “Learning for Justice”). It’s unfortunate we can’t discuss the source, and rationale, but in doing so, the thread would be locked in mere seconds. This is exactly how the rules play out these days, 

[Rip]

26 minutes ago, snitzer said:

In general this entire thread focuses on the symptom (eBay reacts for reasons) and not the source (the SPLC affiliate who did the study “Learning for Justice”). It’s unfortunate we can’t discuss the source, and rationale, but in doing so, the thread would be locked in mere seconds. This is exactly how the rules play out these days, 

Its like prepping blowfish. Cut very carefully.

[underthebigw]

I haven't read this entire thread, so my apologies if I'm rehashing anything or am missing the main point here.

Is ebay within their right to ban the sales of these books on their site, sure.  The problem is that these actions turn into a freaking disease.  This morning a woman in MA listed 4 of the 6 Geisel books on MA Marketplace Facebook page for a ridiculous price.  Within two hours the listing was taken down by Facebook.  Can the same standard applied to ebay apply to Facebook, which is even more of an individual to individual forum?  Maybe.  But there is no denying that there's a risk that ideas, both good and bad can be censored and kept from people by a few powerful parties.  Who decides what's good and bad?  It's a slippery slope.  I sure as heck don't want ebay or Facebook to decide.

Edited March 15, 2021 by underthebigw

[ttfitz]

13 hours ago, Rip said:

So glad you posted this. So from the examples previously, when a local, state, town, school library commits censorship on a book do you think that it makes the people in those locations web browsers not work anymore? Does it stop their cars from still working as well to get the book from a different location? It certainly doesn't effect me in California when I don't live near that location? Did the block captain make your web browser, feet, or car not work?

Once again - all PUBLIC institutions. PUBLIC. Not "When a company decides..."

The standards are different when it's a public entity - I've said that numerous times, and even tried to give you a straight up example that clearly showed the different (the two of us on your front porch). The power of the state - at whatever level involved - to enforce (ie PROHIBIT, you know, from the definition) the decision changes the equation.

I will readily admit that on a less than national level, that power is greatly diminished in this time of digital commerce. But it still exists, and still constitutes censorship.

[Rip]

1 hour ago, ttfitz said:

Once again - all PUBLIC institutions. PUBLIC. Not "When a company decides..."

The standards are different when it's a public entity - I've said that numerous times, and even tried to give you a straight up example that clearly showed the different (the two of us on your front porch). The power of the state - at whatever level involved - to enforce (ie PROHIBIT, you know, from the definition) the decision changes the equation.

I will readily admit that on a less than national level, that power is greatly diminished in this time of digital commerce. But it still exists, and still constitutes censorship.

Yes. I asked what the difference was, you stated  Because it makes a difference - something done by a public institution is judged differently than a private one, largely in the fact that it is difficult for a private entity to "prohibit" something. Prohibit <> not participate.

Your example was on a porch, and I commented above on that and the web browser.

To prohibit means

1 to forbid by authority,

2. to prevent from doing something.

And I wonder, what makes the local "public" librarian, college, town bookstore easier to prohibit than a private company?

I again think that maybe you are conflating the First Amendment with censorship. But perhaps in an opposite way. The First Amendment in fact protects you from censorship against these "local powers of the state". While they DO NOT protect you from corporate censorship. Furthermore this is also a good time to state that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is one of many Legal defense funds there to help in a case like those mentioned originally. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Rip

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, Rip said:

Yes. I asked what the difference was, you stated  Because it makes a difference - something done by a public institution is judged differently than a private one, largely in the fact that it is difficult for a private entity to "prohibit" something. Prohibit <> not participate.

Your example was on a porch, and I commented above on that and the web browser.

To prohibit means

1 to forbid by authority,

2. to prevent from doing something.

And I wonder, what makes the local "public" librarian, college, town bookstore easier to prohibit than a private company?

I again think that maybe you are conflating the First Amendment with censorship. But perhaps in an opposite way. The First Amendment in fact protects you from censorship against these "local powers of the state". While they DO NOT protect you from corporate censorship. Furthermore this is also a good time to state that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is one of many Legal defense funds there to help in a case like those mentioned originally. 

 

 

Maybe I can put it in a way you'll understand:

PUBLICLY - that means it has universal access. It isn't banned. It's available.

A PRIVATE COMPANY - banning it means it's STILL available - you can still find it - you can still read it or watch it or eat it or whatever you do with it - just not through THAT one individual PRIVATE company.

That is why this isn't considered censorship on the scale we think of it.

Some company doesn't carry it. You have plenty of other options to find it elsewhere. 

Case in point - If I Ran the Zoo - If I want to READ it - I can still read it for FREE on Amazon.

Most of us don't see that as censored. The POINT of censoring something is to ELIMINATE access to it because it's considered dangerous. Don't look! 

It's still very much available to read despite what ONE PRIVATE company decided was best for them at this time.

 

The whole point of censorship in America wasn't to impede your ability to flip books on eBay.

It was to stop you from reading or seeing stuff that some considered naughty or dangerous to the mass ideology. They wanted to eliminate it from your MIND.

That isn't the case here.

If you want to READ it or see the pictures from it - it's at your fingers tips instantly.

THAT is why we scoff at the notion that THIS is censorship.

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, underthebigw said:

I haven't read this entire thread, so my apologies if I'm rehashing anything or am missing the main point here.

Is ebay within their right to ban the sales of these books on their site, sure.  The problem is that these actions turn into a freaking disease.  This morning a woman in MA listed 4 of the 6 Geisel books on MA Marketplace Facebook page for a ridiculous price.  Within two hours the listing was taken down by Facebook.  Can the same standard applied to ebay apply to Facebook, which is even more of an individual to individual forum?  Maybe.  But there is no denying that there's a risk that ideas, both good and bad can be censored and kept from people by a few powerful parties.  Who decides what's good and bad?  It's a slippery slope.  I sure as heck don't want ebay or Facebook to decide.

eBay and Facebook decided what they wanted you to see or not see before they ever put their platform online. It's just evolved over time.

You don't own it. You don't get to decide.

You don't think CGC limits what we can see here? Of course they do, it's THEIR platform.

You want full access to decide, you have to make your own.

Private Companies are under no obligation to cater their cash cow to each individuals specifications. That'd be impossible. 

[Nic8612]

26 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

eBay and Facebook decided what they wanted you to see or not see before they ever put their platform online. It's just evolved over time.

You don't own it. You don't get to decide.

You don't think CGC limits what we can see here? Of course they do, it's THEIR platform.

You want full access to decide, you have to make your own.

Private Companies are under no obligation to cater their cash cow to each individuals specifications. That'd be impossible. 

This argument ceases to be valid when you're discussing modern digital rights. "Make your own blah blah blah".  This was very plainly demonstrated when Apple and Android kicked Parlor off of their platforms and Amazon cancelled their web hosting. They tried to make another Facebook, but every rung on the ladder was rigged against them by the tech industry. Now they need to make their own operating system, their own physical phones, their web host, their own app store just because those platforms all chose to come together about what propaganda to feed the people. And the REAL problem is that none of the old turds in Washington want to have the discussion because they can barely work their new fangled smart phones. They sure as heck don't understand the internet, nor do they want to. That would require effort and empathy towards the people they were elected to serve. All they know is the tech lobbyists keep writing the checks, so Washington wikl keep voting the way they're instructed to by our new tech overlords

[theCapraAegagrus]

21 hours ago, Bookery said:

You know, I tried to have a decent debate with you.  So have others.  And you even raise some valid points if you can locate them in your sea of bile.  But every time, I think, okay... I'll grant you that point... you go off on a name-calling rant that belies your true nature, and I say, nah.  Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they are stupid or evil.  You're the one actually boasting about how ignorant and uninformed you are, and then go on and on lecturing others about things you openly admit you know nothing about.  You keep blatantly lying about people's positions, even though they try to correct you multiple times.  You complain endlessly about hyperbole, then write the screed you did above.  I never called you names.  I never misrepresented your viewpoint.  I merely disagreed with some of it... if you weren't so stubborn you'd even see we only differed in matters of degree, not  in overall substance.  You talk about how you can't stand the conversation going on and on, yet you keep returning here.  You're the one that keeps returning to oblique political references, while others have gone out of their way to avoid it.  And since you can't... even once... accurately reflect my positions on any of this, I request most strongly that you refrain from mentioning my name any further in your posts.

I'm not sure if anyone could post a more succinct analysis of a conversation with Chuck.

[Prince Namor]

21 minutes ago, Nic8612 said:

This argument ceases to be valid when you're discussing modern digital rights. "Make your own blah blah blah".  This was very plainly demonstrated when Apple and Android kicked Parlor off of their platforms and Amazon cancelled their web hosting. They tried to make another Facebook, but every rung on the ladder was rigged against them by the tech industry. Now they need to make their own operating system, their own physical phones, their web host, their own app store just because those platforms all chose to come together about what propaganda to feed the people. And the REAL problem is that none of the old turds in Washington want to have the discussion because they can barely work their new fangled smart phones. They sure as heck don't understand the internet, nor do they want to. That would require effort and empathy towards the people they were elected to serve. All they know is the tech lobbyists keep writing the checks, so Washington wikl keep voting the way they're instructed to by our new tech overlords

In other words, they are free to make their voice heard. They haven't been censored - individual business chose not to work with them. They have that right.

You're asking government to MAKE some business have to work with them? That's not a free market.

Ultimately it's lawyers who make those decisions based upon liability. They could care less the reasons behind whatever - they see it as either a benefit or detriment. They can cry all they want about, "We aren't treated fairly", but they're not the first and they won't be the last to go through it. 

In the end, they have their message out there. They have free speech. 

CGC isn't going to let Voldemort come on here and have their say. They see that as a bad business move. It's not suppression of their free speech rights. They have the right to go build their own forum and they did.

Necessity is the mother of invention. 

[Nic8612]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

In other words, they are free to make their voice heard. They haven't been censored - individual business chose not to work with them. They have that right.

You're asking government to MAKE some business have to work with them? That's not a free market.

Ultimately it's lawyers who make those decisions based upon liability. They could care less the reasons behind whatever - they see it as either a benefit or detriment. They can cry all they want about, "We aren't treated fairly", but they're not the first and they won't be the last to go through it. 

In the end, they have their message out there. They have free speech. 

CGC isn't going to let Voldemort come on here and have their say. They see that as a bad business move. It's not suppression of their free speech rights. They have the right to go build their own forum and they did.

Necessity is the mother of invention. 

At this point if you think Facebook and Twitter aren't state sponsored, you're just being naive. Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos weild more power and influence than our own government. They're calling the shots now, not Washington

[underthebigw]

What's the cliche about monopolies--its not the fact that a company is a monopoly that is illegal, it's how they use that monopoly power.  Using it to ban books or ideas on their platforms may be within their rights, but using it to ban them on other platforms and inhibiting the ability of others to create a competing platform, is outrageous.  Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter have long ago crossed the line from private companies into quasi public institutions and should likely be treated as radio and television are.  Can you imagine if in the 1920's, ONE company monopolized radio and prevented all others from going live.  The country would be much worse off for it, and much less free.  This is essentially what is happening here.

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by underthebigw

[Nic8612]

5 minutes ago, underthebigw said:

What's the cliche about monopolies--its not the fact that a company is a monopoly that is illegal, it's how they use that monopoly power.  Using it to ban books or ideas on their platforms may be within their rights, but using it to ban them on other platforms and inhibiting the ability of others to create a competing platform, is outrageous.  Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter have long ago crossed the line from private companies into quasi public institutions and should likely be treated as radio and television are.  Can you imagine if in the 1920's, ONE company monopolized radio and prevented all others from going live.  The country would be much worse off for it, and much less free.  This is essentially what is happening here.

 

Exactly. This whole situation stinks of people who have never bothered to learn about how the US was really formed