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

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

What mob?

In this day and age, three Twitter posts equal a mob. 

[HuddyBee]

13 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Suppression is used to shield people from something - to keep them from it. eBay isn’t doing that. 
 

They could care less if you read it or wipe your butt with it. They just choose not to be caught up in the hoopla. And even with that they’re doing a half azzd job of it as there are 3 COPIES currently available on the site. 
 

Guess it’s not so ‘censored’.

Ebay is suppressing and prohibiting the sale of all 6 Dr. Suess books. Ebay is keeping you from obtaining these books via their site (which happens to be the largest in the world). They are doing so out of political motivation. 

No one is saying eBay is censoring the books completely. Obviously eBay has no authority over my owning or selling these books personally. But they do have authority over their website and are thus censoring it from their website.

Yes this form of censorship is a far-cry from what's happened in the past. But just because it's small and maybe done poorly doesn't mean it isn't a form of censorship. Anyone should be alarmed when the worlds largest auction website that happens to permit the sale of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material decides to completely ban 6 seemingly innocent children's books out of political fear and motivation.

Sure, this a relatively small and minute (and maybe even poorly executed) occurrence but to say that it isn't at all a form of censorship doesn't really make much sense to me. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by HuddyBee

[HotKey]

3 hours ago, snitzer said:

So the book is still for sale on eBay and they didn’t stop racism? Huh. Don’t feed the mob 

Thankfully the syrup is fixed though. 

[ttfitz]

4 hours ago, Rip said:

i bring this up because you wrote this

"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."

So again why write this? Why make the distinction between public vs private. What IS this complete difference you speak of?

Maybe you would be assisted if I bolded things correctly, rather than just a word or two:

"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."

[ttfitz]

56 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

Yes this form of censorship is a far-cry from what's happened in the past. But just because it's small and maybe done poorly doesn't mean it isn't a form of censorship. Anyone should be alarmed when the worlds largest auction website that happens to permit the sale of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material decides to completely ban 6 seemingly innocent children's books out of political fear and motivation.

Can't speak for others, but - once again - I am not saying people should not be alarmed by this action. I think it's a bad thing, and could spread to other areas on their website, too.

But - once again - just because it is a "bad thing" doesn't make it censorship. And I think calling it that - stretching the meaning to include companies decisions in what they do or do not sell - diminishes the meaning of "censorship" which is why I'm against such a label.

[snitzer]

7 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

In this day and age, three Twitter posts equal a mob. 

You conveniently left out Learning for Justice of the SPLC (the source) which fed the media which spun-up school boards. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by snitzer

[Ride the Tiger]

I wouldn't say its censorship. Just setting a rule within their right. Years ago there was a night club in the Chicago suburbs owned by Walter Payton. You had to be 23 in order to enter even though the state law said you only needed to be 21. I guess they wanted to keep the newly turned 21ers from coming in and causing a ruckus. Were they within their right to set this rule? Their nightclub.

[HuddyBee]

Many people keep bringing up the idea that just because something is within the legal rights of the companies it's therefore not censorship. This simply isn't true. Large private businesses can indeed engage in corporate censorship. This censorship isn't direct and it's no where near akin to Government censorship, but it still fits the mold.

8 hours ago, ttfitz said:

But - once again - just because it is a "bad thing" doesn't make it censorship. And I think calling it that - stretching the meaning to include companies decisions in what they do or do not sell - diminishes the meaning of "censorship" which is why I'm against such a label.

My point wasn't that it is a "bad thing" therefore it is censorship. I've addressed why it categorizes as censorship in the post you quoted and my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself. However, I would argue that rather than me stretching the meaning to include private entities, you are shrinking the definition to a very limited result which I would argue is more dangerous.

The reality is, whether we categorize it as censorship or not, (I see reasons to, and I understand why some do not want to) this is simply a matter of semantics. But I think we can all agree it certainly is a very odd and alarming occurrence.

[Prince Namor]

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

Ebay is suppressing and prohibiting the sale of all 6 Dr. Suess books.

Actually they're not. Three copies are available on eBay right now.

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

Ebay is keeping you from obtaining these books via their site

Right. All this time my local newsstand wasn't carrying the Wall Street Journal - I figured maybe they didn't sell it all that well. Turns out they were censoring me!

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

(which happens to be the largest in the world).

Bigger than Amazon? I think not.

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

They are doing so out of political motivation.

LOL

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

No one is saying eBay is censoring the books completely. Obviously eBay has no authority over my owning or selling these books personally. But they do have authority over their website and are thus censoring it from their website.

So when you decide not to buy from eBay, you're censoring them? Is that censorship as well?

9 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

Yes this form of censorship is a far-cry from what's happened in the past. But just because it's small and maybe done poorly doesn't mean it isn't a form of censorship. Anyone should be alarmed when the worlds largest auction website that happens to permit the sale of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material decides to completely ban 6 seemingly innocent children's books out of political fear and motivation.

Sure, this a relatively small and minute (and maybe even poorly executed) occurrence but to say that it isn't at all a form of censorship doesn't really make much sense to me. 

I think both eBay AND you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[HuddyBee]

2 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Actually they're not. Three copies are available on eBay right now.

Just because they're doing a poor job of it doesn't mean they aren't censoring it. The exception doesn't prove the rule. Just because I get away with murder doesn't mean murder isn't illegal or forbidden. Books are being taken down. And eBay's official policy is to delist and remove all of these books. Again, the exception doesn't prove the rule.

4 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Bigger than Amazon? I think not.

And yes, when it comes to used collectibles, eBay is indeed a larger selling platform than Amazon. Or if I must, I'll rephrase my original comment to "one of the largest."

6 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

LOL

I'm not quite sure what was funny about my saying eBay is removing these books out of political fear or motivation. Sure it boils down to $$$ for them, but the only reason they would lose money by leaving these books up is political in nature.

As for the rest of your response, I think you are failing to understand the definition of censorship (at least as I perceive it). We clearly don't use or understand the word in the exact same way. Like I said in my last post, this is in most parts a matter of semantics only, so I think at least for the most part the debate over the definition of "censorship," should be put to rest.

And maybe I am making a mountain out of mole hill, but I do find this genuinely upsetting, and I don't look forward to a day when comics that I love and enjoy or books that I want to sell easily might be prohibited from eBay, because they are politically problematic. And this is a very real (maybe not likely to you, but I don't know) possibility. 

[Rip]

10 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Maybe you would be assisted if I bolded things correctly, rather than just a word or two:

"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."

So 2 things.

1. Why bring up public vs private at all?
    What's completely different?

    Again you did the same when you stated

"- all of which were by PUBLIC entities, which fell under almost any definition of censorship."

So I'm wondering why for the 2nd time stress PUBLIC entities and the definition of censorship unless maybe you were again conflating the First Amendment with the meaning Censorship. 

2. So, are you saying retailers like Amazon, E-bay, and Kobo are absolved of censorship by just stating they are deciding not to participate in the sale of an item? What if they state books with witchcraft like Harry Potter is no longer to be sold because it violates their offensive policy? Or what about erotica?
What if E-bays says they will no longer sell Catcher in the Rye due to the offensive premarital sex, alcohol abuse and prostitution.

(PS. I looked back and I feel like I may look like I'm berating you a bit and come off as a bit of a jerk, so I want apologize. I also think we do have some areas of agreement. Scott)

Edited March 13, 2021 by Rip
Edit addition

[Rip]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

Actually they're not. Three copies are available on eBay right now.

Right. All this time my local newsstand wasn't carrying the Wall Street Journal - I figured maybe they didn't sell it all that well. Turns out they were censoring me!

Bigger than Amazon? I think not.

LOL

So when you decide not to buy from eBay, you're censoring them? Is that censorship as well?

I think both eBay AND you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If the local newsstand found that the Wall Street Journal violated its offensive material policy due to being obscene, politically unacceptable, maybe or a threat to its security through various means, well then yes. 

Seems weak though.

I think people are maybe a bit worried because they know there is far more damning material in various comics. Heck doesn't CGC slab some of Dr. Suess far more offensive material in his Judge Magazines. Maybe this all goes nowhere, and E-bay goes no further than these 6 books, but I can see why people are taking notice.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Rip

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, Rip said:

If the local newsstand found that the Wall Street Journal violated its offensive material policy due to being obscene, politically unacceptable, maybe or a threat to its security through various means, well then yes. 

 FeeBay's Offensive Materials Policy says nothing about any of that. But they do have a lot of policies that explain the huge list of things that can't be sold on their site.

[Lazyboy]

14 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

Ebay is suppressing and prohibiting the sale of all 6 Dr. Suess books. Ebay is keeping you from obtaining these books via their site (which happens to be the largest in the world). They are doing so out of political motivation. 

...

completely ban 6 seemingly innocent children's books out of political fear and motivation.

Why do some of you keep trying to make this a political issue, especially here, where political discussion is not allowed? Or is that the point? Trying to shut down the thread?

14 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

 that happens to permit the sale of The Communist Manifesto

It's hilarious that you keep mentioning this, and I'm sure you don't understand why.

[Rip]

Rewrite

Edited March 13, 2021 by Rip

[Bird]

2 minutes ago, Rip said:

This does overlap with what's politically unacceptable.

doesn't EVERYTHING? and what is politically UNacceptable for one maybe politically acceptable for others so just saying so can lead to trouble around here as we have all seen

Edited March 13, 2021 by Bird

[HuddyBee]

32 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Why do some of you keep trying to make this a political issue, especially here, where political discussion is not allowed? Or is that the point? Trying to shut down the thread?

It's hilarious that you keep mentioning this, and I'm sure you don't understand why.

The debate was over the definition of "censorship," and whether or not this situation constitutes it. It just so happens that the definition of censorship often includes the word "political." However that doesn't mean the debate now is somehow political in nature. I could draw a number of completely absurd conclusions with the faulty logic you're employing.

I mentioned "The Communist Manifest" with a list of other media that is generally considered offensive. If you don't consider the Manifesto offensive and think it is therefore "hilarious" that I mention it then that's fine, I couldn't care less.

[Rip]

1 minute ago, Bird said:

doesn't EVERYTHING? and what is politically UNacceptable for one maybe politically acceptable for others so just saying so can lead to trouble around here as we have all seen

I was going to rewrite my post, but thats a fantastic point.

 

[Bird]

Just now, Rip said:

I was going to rewrite my post, but thats a fantastic point.

 

more people should be like this...I don't mean being open-minded but telling me I made a great point. We need more of that!

[Lazyboy]

4 minutes ago, Bird said:

more people should be like this...I don't mean being open-minded but telling me I made a great point. We need more of that!

Posts like this are why we need to reinstate the laughing reaction and just ban the troll(s).