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

[Nic8612]

3 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Not sure what you think is being fed to me - I don't watch the news or read the papers...

Oh I know - I don't agree with what you're saying. That means I must be one of 'them.'

Lol

I never said who's Kool-Aid you were drinking, just that you were drinking someone's.

Yet somehow you believe Russia is the source of all of our problems. 

 

You came up with that theory all on your own then, I guess?

[Cobbledclam]

Metaphor 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Cobbledclam
Text

[Prince Namor]

56 minutes ago, Nic8612 said:

Yet somehow you believe Russia is the source of all of our problems. 

 

You came up with that theory all on your own then, I guess?

Never said ‘Russia is the source of all of our problems.’

Nice try though. 

[Bird]

[Nic8612]

18 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Never said ‘Russia is the source of all of our problems.’

Nice try though. 

"I never said that exact quote"

You certainly insinuated it though.

You sound like a politician

[snitzer]

17 minutes ago, Nic8612 said:

"I never said that exact quote"

You certainly insinuated it though.

You sound like a politician

This. 

[underthebigw]

1 hour ago, ttfitz said:

 

4) Private institutions acting in a way that is not censorship

Pretty much any action that constitutes whether they support that speech/expression or not. In the case in hand, eBay hasn't stopped (ie prohibited) anyone from buying and selling these particular Dr Seuss books - they have just decided they don't want to be part of that transaction. They are, in fact, exercising their own free expression by deciding this.

And, once again, the reason that the exact same action changes from not censorship to censorship is the power of the state. Yes, a smaller public entity has a harder time these days in suppressing speech - your attempt to throw my browser statement back at me - but that does not change the nature of their actions, it just means the attempted censorship doesn't work so well. As said, when the entity is public it becomes a First Amendment issue.

So, you don’t think #4 is censorship, even if it is coordinated across multiple platforms, while a publisher yanks the books at issue and booksellers and libraries pull them off the shelves?  And, at the same time one of the online sellers prevents anyone from establishing alternate online platforms that might compete and provide other viewpoints?

That’s a very small number of parties that can pull books, thoughts, political thought etc.  

[Prince Namor]

4 hours ago, Nic8612 said:

"I never said that exact quote"

You certainly insinuated it though.

You sound like a politician

Making a statement that Russia contributed to propaganda on Facebook and Twitter (a fact) is nowhere near insinuating that they’re the ‘source of all of our problems.’

If you’re trying to make a case for yourself here in this thread that you aren’t imagining things when it comes to censorship, it might help not to get something this simple so completely wrong. 

[jcjames]

The sin of pride runs very deep among the "woke cancel culture" warriors including the SPLC who seem to make it their life to seek out things to be offended at, protest and feel powerful when their targets acquiesce. It used to be called a "shake down" in the 70s and 80s. These sorts are like those ghastly Hollywood plastic-surgery addicts who, no matter how much slicing and twisting they do their faces, they incessantly keep finding faults and so incessantly keep distorting themselves more and more trying to look more attractive (or less offensive) in their warped minds and are blind to how horrible they actually look! Same with incessantly hunting down every possible statue, book, character, cartoon or word in American history/culture to target, surround and vilify until it is disappeared... then on to the next. It's like Booker T. Washington's quote about these kinds of folks even a hundred years ago - they don't want the patient to get well lest their income and livelihood end. This is their entire livelihood - agitate for the sake of sowing division and conflict, gain power from the conflict, then on to the next victim. There's no improvement to the face of America from this just like there's no improvement to the ghastly plastic surgery disasters who just won't stop.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by jcjames

[Rip]

6 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Not at all. I haven't conflated anything, because I don't believe that all censorship is a First Amendment issue, and have never said anything of the sort. In fact, I have given examples of censorship that don't fall under the First Amendment.

That's the only part of your message I'm going to address directly, because I can't really make out what point you are trying to make, nor do I feel like you have followed along with what I said - you pull half a point out of a statement to attempt to refute another half of a statement, where the missing parts are what makes for the difference. At least that's how it reads to me. So instead, I will try to summarize as best I can what I've been saying, and leave it at that.

In the area of speech/expression, actions in regards to them are either censorship or not censorship. The actors in those situations are either public institutions or private ones. So, that gives us 4 categories. I'll start with the easiest:

1) Public institutions acting in a way that constitutes censorship

This would include almost anything a public institution does against a form of speech/expression. First Amendment.

So then it does seem you have tied the meaning of censorship for a public institution with the first amendment. Why is this needed?

 

Quote

3) Private institutions acting in a way that constitutes censorship

Very little fits in this category, largely due to the availability of other private options. I gave the example before of blurring of an image on a television show that isn't available otherwise.

 

But under a librarian ban, college etc in some small town you STILL have that availability of other (ALL) private options.  So I fail to see why this is mentioned.

Quote

4) Private institutions acting in a way that is not censorship

Pretty much any action that constitutes whether they support that speech/expression or not. In the case in hand, eBay hasn't stopped (ie prohibited) anyone from buying and selling these particular Dr Seuss books - they have just decided they don't want to be part of that transaction. They are, in fact, exercising their own free expression by deciding this.

And, once again, the reason that the exact same action changes from not censorship to censorship is the power of the state.

Yes, a smaller public entity has a harder time these days in suppressing speech - your attempt to throw my browser statement back at me - but that does not change the nature of their actions, it just means the attempted censorship doesn't work so well. As said, when the entity is public it becomes a First Amendment issue.

Also stated: The reason? Power of the state? Why because they can prohibitWhy 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.

 

Why do you think the local librarian is more powerful at stopping people from buying a book than e-bay?

Yes I will continue to use the browser example, the car example and other private businesses. You've have to explain nature.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Rip

[Rip]

14 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Right. Some things are not going to be accepted for those places. Pornography, Graphic Violence... Hate speech... Revolution...

We have the world at our fingertips on a smart phone. The library doesn't want you to access that information, you can get it somewhere else, before you're even out the doors of the library.

Are community standards censorship? 

Most 'community standards' would say, no pornography at the library. Is that censorship? Is that acceptable?

NOW it is. You can get it anywhere you want.

When you eliminate the option from everyone, you have effectively censored something. When you're simply deciding that's not what you want within your place of business, that's everyday commerce.

It's incredibly difficult to censor anything today. The outside options are just too great.

"Community standards" are certainly capable of being censorship. They vary from place to place and evolve over time. Sometimes fought in court legally.  What's pornography & deemed amount of acceptable sexual content is certainly a common battled discussion within censorship over the years. Same as the amount of graphic violence. 

"When you eliminate the option from everyone, you have effectively censored something."

Not sure why this is stated.

The local town librarian doesn't have to eliminate the option for everyone in the world to be censorship.

"Simply deciding what you want in your place of business" can be both everyday commerce and censorship. And its legal too.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Rip
Removed potentially confusing text

[ttfitz]

2 hours ago, underthebigw said:

So, you don’t think #4 is censorship, even if it is coordinated across multiple platforms, while a publisher yanks the books at issue and booksellers and libraries pull them off the shelves?  And, at the same time one of the online sellers prevents anyone from establishing alternate online platforms that might compete and provide other viewpoints?

Just so we are clear, "#4" was a category of things, which I feel very few things fall under. And you have changed the terms - and by a great deal, with "coordinated" and "multiple" - from the current issue. Sure, IF private entities did as you said, it could move into category #3, and be one of the small instances where private censorship could take place.

[ttfitz]

18 minutes ago, Rip said:

So then it does seem you have tied the meaning of censorship for a public institution with the first amendment. Why is this needed?

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are asking here.

21 minutes ago, Rip said:

But under a librarian ban, college etc in some small town you STILL have that availability of other (ALL) private options.  So I fail to see why this is mentioned.

Because those are public entities, which fall under a different criteria, due to the First Amendment. Like I said, it isn't a very effective method these days, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

23 minutes ago, Rip said:

Why do you think the local librarian is more powerful at stopping people from buying a book than e-bay?

I don't. But being a public institution, it plays under different rules.

I seem to be repeating myself, and you don't seem to be understanding the difference in private vs public, so I'm probably finished. Can't promise that I won't post again - I find it really hard to leave questions directed to me unanswered - but at this point there seems little reason to.

To sum up my viewpoint, (hopefully) for the final time - while it is certainly possible for private entities to commit acts of censorship, it is a much higher bar for them to cross than for public entities, which are constrained by the First Amendment. In a free market, capitalist society, each private entity decides for itself what items or services it wishes to provide - no one should be expected to provide anything at all. Picking which books you participate in the sales of is not censorship, any more than picking which DVD players or microwave ovens - or choosing NOT to carry microwave ovens. The reason this matters is by calling these decisions "censorship", which has a negative connotation, you are diluting the meaning of the term, and that is not a good thing, particularly when it is unnecessary. Actions do not have to be censorship to be troubling.

[Nic8612]

7 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Making a statement that Russia contributed to propaganda on Facebook and Twitter (a fact) is nowhere near insinuating that they’re the ‘source of all of our problems.’

If you’re trying to make a case for yourself here in this thread that you aren’t imagining things when it comes to censorship, it might help not to get something this simple so completely wrong. 

Backtrack, deny, deflect

 

You're being disingenuous and no one is buying it. Everyone knows what you meant. The only person trying to convince themselves of anything here is you

[Rip]

8 hours ago, ttfitz said:

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are asking here.

 

Because those are public entities, which fall under a different criteria, due to the First Amendment. Like I said, it isn't a very effective method these days, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

I don't. But being a public institution, it plays under different rules.

I seem to be repeating myself, and you don't seem to be understanding the difference in private vs public, so I'm probably finished. Can't promise that I won't post again - I find it really hard to leave questions directed to me unanswered - but at this point there seems little reason to.

To sum up my viewpoint, (hopefully) for the final time - while it is certainly possible for private entities to commit acts of censorship, it is a much higher bar for them to cross than for public entities, which are constrained by the First Amendment. In a free market, capitalist society, each private entity decides for itself what items or services it wishes to provide - no one should be expected to provide anything at all. Picking which books you participate in the sales of is not censorship, any more than picking which DVD players or microwave ovens - or choosing NOT to carry microwave ovens. The reason this matters is by calling these decisions "censorship", which has a negative connotation, you are diluting the meaning of the term, and that is not a good thing, particularly when it is unnecessary. Actions do not have to be censorship to be troubling.

Problematic text bolded.
Summary since things certainly got circular:

1. I was asking why you needed to add the First Amendment with the meaning of censorship. As I continue to suspect this is a conflating of the two concepts. The First Amendment shouldn't be incorporated into the meaning of censorship. A public entity may be subjected to legal cases of censorship that a private one won't be. OK, great. I used Brookery's post of examples as a starting point for mutually accepted censorship. The meaning of censorship was posted a couple times.

2. The meaning of Censorship was also falsely tied to a scope of banning. Whether or not Target sells a book that is locally censored in Ohio, or a local town bookstore, has no bearing. It's still censorship. How large the scope of banning though may make it a more effective censor/ban. 

2a. When faced with the problem of admitting the public institutions censorship had the same or less scope as private, the debate was forced to move to the public vs private 1st Amendment issue.

3. Censorship has to do with something considered obscene or politically unacceptable.
Refusal to sell microwaves or the e-book format has nothing to do with censorship. Unless it meets the criteria above.

Last thing. I believe E-bay or Amazon should have the legal right to censor books. But I don't always believe they should.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Rip

[ThothAmon]

On 3/3/2021 at 3:27 PM, Phill the Governor said:

We had to remove your listing because it didn’t follow our Offensive material policy. Listings that promote or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination aren’t allowed.

Now that the Vatican has reaffirmed its marriage policy it will be interesting to see if eBay starts banning more things.  Probably not as Dr. Seuss was easy, low hanging fruit for eBay, really only sending a virtue signal. 

[Prince Namor]

4 hours ago, Nic8612 said:

Backtrack, deny, deflect

There's no backtrack - I stated exactly what I meant to say and it's the same as it is now.

Deny? What's to deny?  I stated exactly what I meant to say - 'Russia produced propaganda for Twitter and Facebook' - In no WAY, SHAPE, or FORM did I intend for it to mean, or meant imply (and I'm not even sure where you GET this idea) they are the 'cause for all of our problems.' In no way did I mean that then - or now. 

What part don't you get?

If I MEANT it, I'd SAY it.

For those who've been here for as long as I have - they KNOW - I have no FEAR at ALL of saying what I MEAN on here.

And as far as deflect - well, when someone is seeing hidden meanings in things, that ARE NOT there - and I CALL them out on it - that's NOT deflecting - that's pointing out their failure to COMPREHEND. YOU are deflecting. My message has remained the same, I don't NEED to deflect anything.

 

If anyone is backtracking it's you. I said what I meant to say. It hasn't changed.

Deny - Again that's you. You're denying what MY real statement was in plain black and white English.

Deflect - YOU are deflecting the blame on me because you either a) can't grasp a simple sentence, b) are trying to look cool even though you're clearly called out on it or c) you really are 'seeing hidden meanings' in things that aren't there.

Whichever it is, that's YOUR issue, not mine.

I said what I meant, I meant what I said and if there was any additional meaning within it, I'd gladly beat that horse to death in front of the entire forum.

Anyone who has read my posts over 10+ years will tell you that is the FACT.

4 hours ago, Nic8612 said:

You're being disingenuous and no one is buying it.

No. I'm really not. I DID NOT EVER think or MEAN that 'Russia is the cause of all of our problems'. Never said it - never meant - never implied it. 

I swear to GOD - may he come down and chop my sons head off right in front of me if I'm lying - that I did NOT EVER say that or mean that or imply it.

You are WRONG. Suck it up.

4 hours ago, Nic8612 said:

Everyone knows what you meant.

Everyone? Lol. They'd be as wrong as you.

4 hours ago, Nic8612 said:

The only person trying to convince themselves of anything here is you

I don't have to convince myself. I already know exactly what I said and what I meant.

[Prince Namor]

10 hours ago, Rip said:

"Community standards" are certainly capable of being censorship. They vary from place to place and evolve over time. Sometimes fought in court legally.  What's pornography & deemed amount of acceptable sexual content is certainly a common battled discussion within censorship over the years. Same as the amount of graphic violence. 

"When you eliminate the option from everyone, you have effectively censored something."

Not sure why this is stated.

The local town librarian doesn't have to eliminate the option for everyone in the world to be censorship.

"Simply deciding what you want in your place of business" can be both everyday commerce and censorship. And its legal too.

Because "When you eliminate the option from everyone, you have effectively censored something." is no longer an option.

See, back when censorship was a REAL issue - you COULD 'eliminate the option from everyone' very easily. That's no longer a real option. There's too many other ways to get access to whatever it is you want. A business can say "I don't support that - I don't want to carry it', and it doesn't really make that much of a difference, because you can get it elsewhere.

The whole point of censorship, was to eliminate the availability of it. That's almost impossible now. 

[nines]

3 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Because "When you eliminate the option from everyone, you have effectively censored something." is no longer an option.

See, back when censorship was a REAL issue - you COULD 'eliminate the option from everyone' very easily. That's no longer a real option. There's too many other ways to get access to whatever it is you want. A business can say "I don't support that - I don't want to carry it', and it doesn't really make that much of a difference, because you can get it elsewhere.

The whole point of censorship, was to eliminate the availability of it. That's almost impossible now. 

And in Fahrenheit 451, some people still possessed books. If it is not available to the masses, then it is being censored. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by nines

[MetalPSI]

Biggest problem here is the advance of technology. 

People who nobody had ever paid attention to, can now paste themselves across the internet and gather masses of like minded individuals. 

You can either pay attention or ignore them. Reminds me of the Simpsons Halloween episode.