| |||||||||||||
No one was censoredNo one was censoredPosted May 5, 2012 8:04 UTC (Sat) by gowen (guest, #23914)Parent article: Linux Format censored over 'Learn to Hack' feature (bit-tech)
Caution: unpopular opinion
No one was censored here. Linux Format were allowed to produce and sell their magazine in whatever way they could accomplish.
B&N took their legitimate right not to sell something they considered morally questionable. Just like Walgreen's don't sell KKK memorabilia or how NPR don't run advertising for the hardcore porn.
B&N's right to choose what they do and not find appropriate to sell is as absolute as Linux Format's right to publish what *they* find appropriate.
(Log in to post comments)
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 11:04 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I don't think that opinion is so unpopular as you imagine, it's technically true. However, the global effect of such commercial decisions can effectively add up to censorship. We should pay attention _before_ that happens, because afterwards it can be too late to get it changed without momentous cultural shifts.
The behaviour of the major cinema chains in the US has the _effect_ of distorting the use of movie ratings and making a supposedly private commercial outfit into effectively a government censor. And they seem, if anything, overjoyed to be granted this power.
Or another example, small US states are legally permitted to buy any school textbooks they like, but in practice the textbook makers are most responsive to the rules laid down by the most populous states. If those states don't want a particular element of Geography, History or Mathematics taught, it does not get taught by textbooks even in the states that don't have such rules.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 13:28 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Very well said. The size and influence of those distributing "content" certainly matters.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:04 UTC (Sat) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
So, large commercial entities should be obliged to market things that they do not wish to by (someone) based on (some criteria) as the alternative amounts to censorship.
Fair enough. Care to fill in the brackets? Who is going to tell B&N what they are morally obligated to sell? Would that not make *them* the effective censor, only their criteria would be ... -- something unknown other than commerce?
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:23 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"So, large commercial entities should be obliged to market things that they do not wish to by (someone) based on (some criteria) as the alternative amounts to censorship."
No. Care to read more carefully and try again?
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 5:40 UTC (Sun) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
Read it again. Still don't know who gets to decide what commercial choices constitute unacceptable censorship.
Perhaps you should write it again more carefully.
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 17:18 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] However, the global effect of such commercial decisions can effectively add up to censorship. We should pay attention _before_ that happens, because afterwards it can be too late to get it changed without momentous cultural shifts.This is the crux of the argument. I don't read it as suggesting that there be an arbitrator that tells a retailer what's permissible to sell. I read it as a suggestion to be mindful of the size and influence of those we buy things from. I very much agree with this point. Sidestepping political conversation, there are ways to address the issue. As others have noted, you can change the title of the article. You can also apply pressure to the retailer. You can open your own book store. You can work hard to write things that will not offend others. Whether you should have to do those things is another discussion entirely.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 15:39 UTC (Mon) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936) [Link]
Naturally each distributor chooses what titles they want to sell, based on the topic, niche etc.
What happened here is that BnN first agreed to sell the magazine and then pulled a single issue because they didn't like what was written in it. That's much worse than not having the magazine at all in the first place. Once they've promised to sell it, they have an obligation to do it. I would even suspect they were breaching some contracts. It is not the distributors job to arbitrarily censor the content they are distributing. This is wrong in so many ways, I certainly hope it is not allowed by either law or contract. What's next, approving single articles? How about pulling issues that put them in a negative light? This is a plain stupid censorship attempt. I can't believe there are people who would think the magazine has any fault in this for choosing the wrong title.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 17:22 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
HELLOOO, does no one read comments or linked articles anymore? According to the Verge (link has been posted), B&N has pulled nothing and the very issue in question is still available in the Nook store. Nothing, repeat, nothing seems to have been pulled.
No one was censored Posted May 18, 2012 20:55 UTC (Fri) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
True, but the question of whether private companies are permitted (legally or morally) to engage in blatant censorship is a critical question that needs to be answered sooner rather than later. The moral standards of super-mega-fundamentalists are already applied to mobile appstores, e.g. Apple pulled the mobile version of one of the biggest German print publications because they didn't like German law&morality and decided they have a right to tell people what they are allowed to read/see, and what they aren't. This is as unacceptable as it would've been if B&N had done what they were accused of.
Though you are of course right to point out that B&N has apparently not actually done this - nevertheless, it's still not a "nothing to see, move along" thing. This kinda stuff does happens routinely, maybe not by B&N, but Google&Apple certainly do it as SOP.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 19:57 UTC (Sat) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]
B&N aren't obligated to sell anything. In fact it's quite convenient to have a whitelist of books that are more probably worth reading than others. It is however troublesome that someone has the power to add or remove books from a common whitelist without respect to the will of the users of said whitelist. Which is why it's important for debatable removals to be reported on. This reporting will hopefully help to shed light on what motives and criteria control the inclusion and exclusion of books from said list.
What's really bothersome is the bundling of tangentially related services. Even if B&N may have developed an excellent payment system and handy e-readers, they should not be able to and allowed to seize control over the technology to greatly deter users from reading material not on their whitelist.
B&N should of course not be forced to advertise articles on cracking. But we must make sure that if they didn't advertise and distribute articles on cracking, it wouldn't matter unless everyone else on the Internet also decided to neither distribute nor read material on cracking.
Ideally B&N should publish a blacklist of reading material on cracking that you probably shouldn't read. Then whoever doesn't want to read material on cracking can filter that out and keep on with their lives believing that they're computer systems might be secure.
No one was censored Posted May 5, 2012 20:13 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's important to know because while B&N has all the right in the world to be damn stupid, it's also my right to simply not give them my own business.
If I don't know stuff like this then I may make the mistake of thinking that shopping at B&N would be a good ideas.
No one was censored Posted May 7, 2012 6:37 UTC (Mon) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
It's very important that people learn about cracking; with the advent of DRM-systems, cracking cryptographic systems is more important than ever.
Oh wait, were you talking about something else not related to "cracking"?
No one was censored Posted May 6, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sun) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
This was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
B&N didn't stop selling the magazine.
|
|||||||||||||