[J_Sway]

(10-10-2018 08:03 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 05:58 AM)the-dream Wrote:  

I don't agree with everything Amazon does (like banning your book, not paying UK taxes and unfairly undercutting local law abiding businesses, working conditions) but I think this is fair enough. I doubt you'd sell one of the people calling you a rapist's book on your site either and it is the same principle.

Does my site control 50% of all book sales in the United States?

This is precisely why people should be concerned. Be it because of Roosh's book, Tucker's, or anyone else's. People act like it's an abuse of human rights when a country, like China does this, but when it's a company based in a free nation, suddenly it becomes a "right" of the company to pick and choose whatever they want to sell. While this may be true, to a degree, it becomes a major problem when these companies are so big that they can actually control, and even choke off, the flow of information in much the same way that totalitarian governments do.

Then it comes down to the issue of whether one prefers to have their government control the flow of information, or the private enterprises. I'd like to think most of us here are intelligent enough to know the difference, or the lack of difference, rather. It's the leftists that seem to start foaming at the mouth about it when a "bad" gov't does it, but applaud when their favorite retail and media outlets start telling you what's good, what's right, and only offer what you "should" be consuming.

They want total control, even if it means the end result is another totalitarian system. Totalitarianism, by the people, for the people.

It's also worth mentioning the parallels between the way these companies are handling these sort of things and the way totalitarian gov'ts handle them. China doesn't come out with an announcement and say, "These are the books and media we are banning this year. Here is the list." No, they just add regulations to the policies already in place, and expect them to be enforced, from the top-down, that way by the time they get to the people, few of them know the banned content ever existed in the first place. There is no outcry, at least not enough to be heard, and the general populace goes on about their day as if it never happened, without knowing that the pool of information they have access to is now much smaller. These companies are doing the same thing. No announcement. No fanfare. A delisting here, a shadowban there, and the occasional perfunctory comment about supply chain problems or a vague TOS violation when someone points out something is unavailable. The general populace is none the wiser, and have no idea that their pool of available information just got a tiny bit smaller.

(10-11-2018 04:03 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

We knew that they will be clamping down on thought-criminals. And Tucker is even mainstream - that is a bad omen.

This all started quite a while ago, but a major precedent was set when Alex Jones got hit a much publicized ban hammer from all the major providers. That opened up what I believe is going to be a groundswell of oligopolitical thought-policing and censorship.