That is a massive non-sequitur. How do you even know what are the skin colors of individual people who defend the books? Are people of certain colors obliged to have the same values?
This is going to lead to reverse-dox revenge killings.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises stopped printing these books because they decided the books were insensitive and offensive. Should we force them to print more of these books?
If a dominant player (Amazon, Apple) blacklists you, it is not a drop of water, it is a devastating tsunami.
It is rational to concentrate on tsunamis and ignore mere drops.
They can stop printing. But it is hard for me to defend Amazon, Ebay, et al with 'they can do what they want on their platform'.
If your argument is that eBay and Amazon are so critical to the fabric of the internet that special rules must apply to them, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I do think, however, that the current situation is no longer acceptable. I don't know whether as a society we should consider some sort of limit on influence a given company has, but that is actually what is needed. If Ebay was a corner store, I would not give half a shit that it stopped carrying Seuss. When a publicly traded company does it, it quickly becomes problematic.
The freedom of a giant, monopolistic company is not aligned with the freedom of humans.
We already have precedents for conpanies being forced to impartiality- utilities. Ebay's a utility, the modern large-scale version of the ground a flea market sits on.
Yes, it is a form of censorship. It is completely legal. people can still have an opinion if HN should engage in censorship, and if the criteria are appropriate.
>Should we force them to print more of these books?
Of course not!
Flagging and moderation on HN is not censorship, because the content doesn't disappear. Am I the only one that browses HN with "showdead" enabled?
Similarly, I think that eBay's actions are paternalistic, heavy handed, and part of a trend I do not support. I would encourage others who feel this way to let ebay know.
A store should not have the freedom to determine what it sells?
The question above can be modified to make it reflect the current argument more accurately to: should HN censor all earlier posts and comments, based on the most recent changes in sensitivities?
Edit: question above, not yours
After Charlottesville, the AHA put out a statement making it clear that removing confederate statues from public view was absolutely not “erasing history”. Nobody listened to them. People just kept going on about the left erasing the past. This made it clear that this was just a culture war rather than honest concern.
If you are worried about erasing the past, get the opinion of some historians.
What worries me is the voluntary whitewashing and consequent suppression of alternative media by companies whose judgement is solely based on PR.
A publisher choosing not to reprint works that contain questionable content is completely understandable and well within their right. Nobody is arguing they have to print these books. But when the biggest open marketplaces begin to decide what is allowed for resale, that is something else entirely.
It's a slippery slope to let public outcry determine what is easily available and what is not.
Then why was that the entire content of your post?
> We all know history is written by the victors.
It isn't. All of the history professors I know cringe at this phrase.
How do you know this?
Maybe efforts in previous years made them do it now?