Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickysielicki | Hacker News Reader

Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society. People have a right to delude themselves. Imagine having a child with autism, you are overwhelmed by it, you are unwilling to accept what the doctors tell you.

Who is Amazon, or anyone, to tell someone that they can't explore every avenue, and read whatever they want to deal with that grief? Think about the cathartic experience of reading this book and getting momentary hope that there's an answer to a problem that you've been told is unsolvable. It's psychologically like playing the lottery.

View on HN

> Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society

I mean, sure. But not every trader must therefore carry and sell snake oil. The same free society gives them that choice.

> Who is Amazon, or anyone, to tell someone that they can't explore every avenue, and read whatever they want to deal with that grief?

All they seem to be saying is that they won't be selling it to you? You are certainly free to explore every avenue on your own. But does everyone have to help you with that?

I'm not saying they should have to, but I am saying that they ought to.

I think freedom and free speech are good things. Don't you?

id say amazon not carrying an item is a application of free speech.

publisher is saying "this is how you cure autism" and amazon is saying "no, that isn't"

for amazon to leave it up would be to not use their freedom, which is bad because using free speech is good.

>Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society. People have a right to delude themselves. Imagine having a child with autism, you are overwhelmed by it, you are unwilling to accept what the doctors tell you.

I don't agree with you because parents are making decisions for their children - if it was your decision to put it in your own body, perhaps. But the State has an obligation to defend the rights of children, and in this case if they need to step in to prevent parents poisoning their kids they should do so.

Well I'll admit I'm a little unorthodox here, but nothing is more naturally obvious to me than the idea that children belong to their parents, and I don't think there's a lot of middle ground, and I think society has gone much too far in taking away the right of parents to decide anything and everything for their children.

Nothing happens in a bubble. If a parent doesn't want to vaccinate or wants to give their kid marijuana, that's just a data point within the spectrum of the type of decisions that this parent will make for their child over the years. So we draw a few lines in the sand -- you have to vaccinate, you have to send them to school for 8 hours times 9 months a year, you can't give them XYZ to treat their autism, where does it end? Are vegan parents who force their children to be vegan dangerous and child abusing?

Besides, the fact that a parent reads a book does not imply that they will act on it. Maybe they know in the back of their mind that it's all bullshit, but for an hour a night before bed, they get some comfort out of the fantasy.

The slippery slope argument is pretty lame. Where's the line? Parents shouldn't be allowed to harm their children. There's the line right there.

Is the vegan diet harmful to the child? Probably not, but you'll have your child taken away if your child is malnourished.

> Parents shouldn't be allowed to harm their children.

But not getting them vaccinated doesn't harm their children...

...provided that everyone else around their children is vaccinated.

But when that population drops low enough...then herd immunity stops working. Then their children get sick, and other children may also get sick, etc.

So a parent not harming their children is increasing the risk to other parent's children that they will be harmed. Should parents be allowed to stochastically harm other parent's children?

Nobody can prove it in the individual case - but statistically it can be shown to cause such harm...

None of that brings into the discussion that such unvaccinated children could become sick and pass it on to other immunocompromised individuals (adults and children)...

>...where does it end?

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

It worries me that we seem to equate Amazon with society.

Why is this such a pain point whenever an internet discussion of freedom comes up? Free speech and freedom are principles. These principles inspired the guarantees the Constitution claimed to make. But that does not mean that the government is the sole arbiter of freedom. The fact that Amazon bans a book means that Amazon does not appreciate the value of freedom and free speech, in the same sense that when the government limits speech, it means they do not value free speech and freedom.

Freedom isn't just with respect to government. When Amazon filters books you can buy, that does mean we have less freedom, especially when Amazon is a filter through which we are able to purchase most goods. No, your first amendment rights haven't been violated. But yes, we have less freedom.

Seems like you just want your freedoms to trample over Amazon's freedoms. Why? Because they're big?

You put your personal interpretation of the general principle of freedom of speech above actual rights and freedoms. Nothing noble about that.

Where have I said that the government should step in and change Amazon and make them host these books? I haven't said that. All I've said is that Amazon should take a principled stance.

Problem is, your interpretation of freedom of speech principles is very disagreeable.

That's not what my pain point is. My pain point is that Amazon has grown to the point where this is the same kind of concern as if the government did the same thing.

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19393433

Sorry, I jumped ahead on that one and thought you were saying something that you weren't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com