Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

There's a deep censorship vibe on this one.

Seems like at the crux of this lawsuit, isn't that Amazon is selling products they're legally allowed to sell, it is that Amazon is also selling a booklet with information that is readily available online telling people how to use that product in unintended (deadly) ways.

HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? Should a company be liable for the free access of information? There's even some people in the comments already calling for new age restrictions on Amazon accounts for certain products, I wonder how long once that is implemented before certain localities pass laws restricting access to "unpure" materials like sex ed/safe sex?

I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting. Ironically I think if this lawsuit is successful on its merit, you could also sue arstechnica for promoting the same thing they're accusing Amazon of. That's the nature of censorship, nobody is really safe once you open those floodgates.

View on HN

> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more?

The most surprising thing about this is that the sensational journalists are getting a free pass. The journalists have now advertised this chemical to the world (including minors who read the news) far, far more than the little box on Amazon that shows related products.

How many people knew that this chemical combined with another medication was used for suicide? Probably not many, until journalists decided that this anti-Amazon story was the next big thing. Now it seems like everyone who follows tech news or sees this scrolling through their social media feed has been informed about this combination of chemicals and how it is used for suicide. Amazon isn't the only place to buy this chemical, and I doubt the recommendation algorithm was the impetus for people searching for the chemical in the first place.

The way this story is blowing up seems utterly dangerous in itself, yet most journalists aren't even bothering to try to hide the names of the chemicals. Amazon's recommendation algorithm didn't have any intent in this process, but all of these journalists broadcasting this information far and wide to boost their personal click rate certainly could have thought a little bit harder about what they were doing.

I think you’re making it more complicated that it actually is.

I believe the case is specifically focusing on the promotion of the kits to underage children. As a society we have already embraced censorship for children.

If we can count how on Amazon to not offer up R rated movies to children via Amazon Prime (which they dutifully do), it seems reasonable that we should expect (and sadly now demand) that they not promote combinations of products to children that are designed to lead to their death.

> I believe the case is specifically focusing on the promotion of the kits to underage children. As a society we have already embraced censorship for children

Underage children are already not allowed to have Amazon accounts (unless explicitly granted as a sub-account of their parents' account).

How, exactly, would you propose that Amazon determine if the person viewing a page and entering credit card information and a mailing address is a minor?

The only actual solution to this problem is to forbid selling of this specific product on Amazon, which I have no doubt is in process. Many chemicals and OTC medications have already disappeared from Amazon due to fears of abuse by minors.

> t seems reasonable that we should expect (and sadly now demand) that they not promote combinations of products to children that are designed to lead to their death.

There was no such intent in the recommendation algorithm. Did you know this combination of products could be used for suicide before it was blasted all over the internet by these news articles? I didn't, and I doubt anyone at Amazon was aware of it either (until now).

Are you also holding the journalists to the same standard? These articles about "suicide kits" have been filling my social media feeds and news outlets for the past day. The number of minors being exposed to this information by news outlets has to be many orders of magnitude higher than the number of minors who ever saw this combination of "recommended items" on Amazon. Keep in mind that Amazon wasn't just showing this to random shoppers, you had to search for specific ingredients to begin with. Journalists, on the other hand, have been advertising this combination far and wide to everyone who just wants to read news.

The difference is that one is obviously categorized, and the other has no categorization. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of items on Amazon that can kill.

Even if we start a lost of possible harmful items, would it solve the issue in this case? How are minors buying anything in the interent without supervision? Were they even using an account marked as a minor?

That there is the real problem. You can't possibly kid-safe the entirety of the world, internet included; without running into practically Sisyphean challenges that don't even need to be approached.

I mean, the solution is rather simple.

Instead of trying to kid-safe the world, why not just make the world less shitty to live in?

It's a 2 birds 1 stone trick, except this proverbial stone will be taking down many more than just 2 birds. Almost all of the current problems we deal with as a society, all stem from how shitty society has become for many people. But because some people are happy with the way things are going, since things are mostly fine for them; the rest of us have to put up with it? And people are surprised when kids, teens and adults are deciding to opt-out? And their best solution is to make it harder for people to find way to opt-out?

Seriously, really?

Is it really so surprising that people would want a fast ride out of hell at that point? Because that's what it must be like for them if they figure ending it all there and then, is better off than putting up with the rest of societies bullshit any longer.

I have more to say on this, but am trying to follow HN's rules about flamewar stuff, and I realize that this comment thread is very easily turned into such a thing unless careful, so I am cutting my comment off here.

"Almost all of the current problems we deal with as a society, all stem from how shitty society has become for many people."

The interesting part is that many of the child suicides are in the well off families.

Sure, well off... sure... by who's standards?

1. Are they well off because they have digital devices?

2. Are they well off because their parents can afford to have just 1 working member?

3. Are they well off because their parents make more than 100k a year? Or some other arbitrary number?

I've met some families in the past that meet all 3 criteria and exceeded the 3rd; but they rent. Are they also well off?

I do think it's interesting that the 'well off' kids are the ones offing themselves. But if that's the case, then we need to look very seriously at what's occurring at that point, because it just means I am more correct than previously stated.

Someone who is well off by the standards of those who are potentially poorer than that person, may still have plenty of other reasons to be unhappy with life. Perhaps not valid to you or I, since they are 'well off', but our opinions on how well to do they are don't matter. The only thing that matters ultimately is that they don't feel like its worth it to continue living.

That, needs to be solved. And that, is part of why I am right about how society has become shitty for many people. Even if they are well to do. Especially so. That should be the last group to be wanting to off itself.

So that tells me that it's not money related, or object related.

It's societally related somehow, in some fashion, which we need to find out, and fix.

Please don't turn this into a flame war.

Society "being shitty" can be taken many ways. The most common would be seen in amenities/money.

We should do something about it, but what? Again, easier said than done.

Recommending a book that instructs you how to use these products in combination for the purpose of suicide is wrong. I’d argue selling and profiting from that kind of information is wrong, too. No one’s saying Amazon can’t sell these chemicals. But it’s dubious at best to defend selling the info, and it’s downright evil to recommend it.

Yes, it’s their algorithm. But they tweak it all the time to catch issues like this.

If they recommended Mein Kampf and white robes when you ordered rope, surely we’d all agree that would be wrong, even though those individual items are defendable. Recommending them in combination would be evil.

Likewise, recommending guns and bullets alongside a book about mass shootings would be evil.

I don’t see how this is a controversial position.

It can't be evil. The algorithm just recommends products without understanding their intent.

The real question shouldn't be around the algorithm, but rather around the suicide book being banned. Or even around unauthorized account creation/access or payment.

It's "wrong" only if you believe that taking one's own life is wrong. This is a deep, long-standing issue that has valid points on both sides. Not so black and white. I can think of at least one good use case: where someone with a terminal disease (or otherwise poor quality of life, through no control of their own). Then, maybe, peacefully taking one's own life to reduce their own suffering, not to mention the suffering of their loved ones, might actually be the "right" choice. Hard to generalize this as a universal rule since context matters so much here.

I believe teenagers killing themselves is bad and wrong and we should try to stop it.

If your values diverge from that great for you I guess but I think my values on this are more consistent with a healthy society and approach to regulating corporate behavior.

Except the algorithm is just working off the data it has available, and the data it has collected; and that data tells it that people who buy that list of ingredients have also bought that booklet in the past. So it suggests that booklet to others as well, since they have the same list of ingredients in their cart.

The algorithm is not evil, and Amazon itself is not either, provided they do something to try to fix the problem. But the problem is in how algorithms themselves operate.

It's just taking known info and applying it to current situation.

The only actual, proper, and relatively easy by comparison solution to all of this is to just make it so people have no want or reason to commit suicide, or any other 'evil' acts that might be suggested by a foolish algorithm.

Banning things has never worked. Just look at all those super successful wars on drugs, alcohol, etc. Never, worked. Ever.

The true evil, in my opinion, is the attempt to kid-safe the world to the point where it removes all potential for joy and happiness. That leads to suicide by the first groups who commit it, which produces data for our A.I driven machines, which leads to algorithms happily suggesting the perfect thing for it.

I would like to add finally, that just because you don't see how your or any one elses opinion is or is not controversial, does not make it so. Calling opinion controversial based upon opinion itself as well, is just argumentation. Which should be fine in a logical world. But we do not live in a logical world, which is why people are preferring to opt-out of it.

And that's my opinion on the matter. Algorithms just happily oblige the user.

I would think this information comes close to encouragement to suicide which is against the law in a lot of jurisdictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation

Close, maybe. Prosecutable, unlikely given the algorithm doesn't understand what is being recommended (products, not an idea) an would not meet mens rea.

Just add a simple exception for THIS case.

When Amazon has had to do this 1000+ unique times, then we can have the debate of whether their extra work is worth the lost lives of kids. Probably still a loser of an argument IMO but let’s just take a simple first step yeah?

Yeah no, let's not.

Razor blades, pen knives, #8 marine line, paracord. All of these things are trivially used to kill yourself.

It is not societies job to protect your snot goblin for killing themselves because you let the little tyke have free access to order whatever they want from the internet.

Why not ban the booklet? Then this whole discussion is moot.

Because banning things has never worked, for literally almost anything in human history. It just makes it more desirable since you can't have it. Humans are weird like that.

But maybe it's fitting we are like that, because at the end of the day, who's right is it to be banning anything? Certainly not yours, or mine. Sure, protect the children... but against what? Themselves? Kids have been doing stupid things for a long time, and been mostly fine. It's only recently that society has decided to ban joy as well by happenstance via the many methods employed to reduce the spread of covid that things started to go overboard.

How about we just stop making life shitty for people. That will be what makes this entire discussion moot.

It's not that kids will stop doing it, but that Amazon would have taken action to prevent this on their platform (in the least invasive way), and there's no lawsuit at that point. Interesting that the article doesn't mention if the book is still available or not.

"How about we just stop making life shitty for people."

Easier said than done. Most of the child suicides are so well off families.

> Easier said than done.

Sure, but nothing in life worth doing is easy. Sometimes you have to take the hard path to gain anything worthwhile.

And quite frankly, there is no reason or excuse for society to continue to be made shittier and shittier just to suit the inadequate opinions of literally anyone.

Please be objective and reasonable. Define shitty. Where do we start with the fixes? It's easy to write an angry comment talking about generalized ideas that are universally acceptable but can have opposing ways of getting it done.

This argument is ridiculous.

Throwing up small obstacles to suicide has been done forever and isn’t controversial. People are impulsive. We put up railings and hotline phones on bridges and stuff like that.

That’s a good thing.

Can you articulate an argument for why it’s a good thing?

This is controversial; people fought against adding ugly suicide netting to the Golden Gate Bridge for years, and there are strong utilitarianism-based arguments for limiting the lengths we go to prevent suicide.

Because the social benefits of literally recommending a suicide handbook alongside a chemical that kills in 20 minutes on a platform widely used by almost every family in America without a second thought is zero.

There’s no cost benefit analysis to do here for the rest of us. There’s no pros and cons. Amazon doing this is bad, they were told about it and didn’t fix it. They have godlike amounts of money and are telling us to go fuck ourselves if it bothers us.

They could make an algorithm that doesn’t literally recommend suicide to teens and they should. There’s no other side of the argument we are talking about a recommendation here. The recommendation engine is a consumer product and it’s faulty.

As for the chemical the legitimate needs for it are likely vanishingly small and I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it.

We have been so corrupted by corporate influence we don’t even think to insist that companies act in the benefit of society anymore. Making profits isn’t a god given right if the product is bad for people.

> I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it.

Well, you just articulated one of the major social benefits. We do really mind. The benefits are clearly not zero, like you claimed.

What you didn’t articulate is an argument for why we should invest so much — and give up privacy and our freedoms — to try (and fail) to prevent such a vanishingly small number of self-inflicted deaths.

This is emotional outrage bait, not a basis for instituting evidence-based policy.

Frankly, it’s not our problem, and not our cost to be bourne.

If you want to take away anyone’s ability to use the internet for commerce without interference, why don’t you you start with taking away your own children’s free access to the internet and credit cards, rather than everyone else?

You can do that yourself, today — and probably should.

Who is we? You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site you use to restock your kitchen or is this some kind of hypothetical cost you’re worried about incurring here?

If this is really your approach to consumer product safety then I suppose you’re consistent, if wrong.

I bet it’s not though. I suspect you’re pretty happy with the outcome of a framework where dangerous products are regulated.

The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value. We mandate everything from child proof packaging to rear view mirrors to alcohol consumption of pilots to competence exams for barbers to labeling for Doritos.

I suspect most in this thread are idly arguing from bias rather than reading the facts of Amazon’s behavior here it’s pretty indefensible.

Our tech giants are corporations and the things they produce are products. By a few historical accidents (especially section 230) and a shit ton of corporate PR we have been conditioned not to evaluate them as consumer products that can be defective and harmful but we should start.

> You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site

Yes, I do. You do too. Your medicine cabinet and cleaning supplies are full of lethal “lab chemicals” that would kill if ingested, or ingested in even mild excess.

But this isn’t even a “highly lethal lab chemical”, it’s just sodium nitrate; mined straight from the earth, and has been used as a food preservative for at least a couple centuries.

> … you use to restock your kitchen

It’s none of your business what we buy these things for, whether it’s to stock our kitchen for meat preservation, or backyard science experiments with our kids.

> The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value.

The freedom you’re attacking out of emotional panic isn’t Amazon’s. They can comply with whatever arbitrary nonsensical “save the children” crap you invent, and compliance will cost a microscopic percentage of their overall revenue.

The freedom you’re attacking is mine, and everyone else’s.

Take responsibility for yourself and your own children. If you can’t do that, blame yourself, not me.

You want to be free to see a handbook with suicide instructions next to the pure sodium nitrite you order? That’s the freedom you are personally advocating for? You’re not seeing anything about this turn of events that could be improved upon?

Do you also want to be free to buy baby formula and not be sure what’s in it, or a car where the seatbelts fail if you weigh over 150lbs? Do you want freedom to see pornographic billboards near the playground?

These things aren’t freedom by any recognizable definition. They’re just defective products made by unaccountable corporations. Like Amazon’s recommendation engine in this case.

The idea that corporations should just be able to do whatever they want is so fucking toxic. Seeing this attitude pervasive here on the discussion board of the private equity firm that’s advised so much of our modern tech culture sure does explain a lot though.

> You want to be free to see a handbook with suicide instructions next to the pure sodium nitrite you order? That’s the freedom you are personally advocating for?

I want to be free to order goods without having to upload government-issued ID or otherwise jump through hoops to assuage your panic.

I also want to be free to see a suicide book next to a sodium nitrate purchase without an emotionally panicked busy-body deciding that we have to save the children by infringing on the latter freedom.

> Do you also want to be free to buy baby formula and not be sure what’s in it, or a car where the seatbelts fail if you weigh over 150lbs? Do you want freedom to see pornographic billboards near the playground?

You’re conflating a lot of very different issues here. Can you actually explain how these are related?

> The idea that corporations should just be able to do whatever they want is so fucking toxic.

Nobody is advocating that here, that I can tell.

Furthermore, far more toxicity arises out of nanny-scolds advocating for ever-increasing regulation so that nobody will ever feel unsafe again.

If you want to look for the source of policies that stifle children, replace their healthy childhood experiences with institutionalized suffocation, and as a result, have created the most mentally unwell generation (literally) ever — try a mirror.

I dont think these two things are necessary connected. It's possible to restrict purchase/ownership of some products and not others. There are many localities where you can't buy booze or guns but can buy pork, and visa versa. It's not a "there coming for us" kind of thing. These suicide kit items in question could be controlled without the "floodgates" opening. This is a classic fearmongering argument. Don't do this reasonable thing that most folks agree is right because it will hypothetically result in some sort of unreasonable consequence when taken to an absurd level in an hypothetical argument.

> HN hates Amazon, HN also hates censorship, the question is which do we as a community hate more? Should a company be liable for the free access of information?

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals. And calling that "censorship" seems silly. Is it also censorship that kids aren't allowed to own guns, or that you're not allowed to own plutonium?

> I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting.

What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so?

> I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Amazon ban teens from buying the book, just the dangerous chemicals.

Thus proposing a new system of age restrictions, which can be re-used for other things once they exist.

> And calling that "censorship" seems silly.

The lawsuit is asking Amazon to stop sharing information, or associating that information in particular ways, that is in fact censorship.

> What else would you call a bundle of items consisting of a book with instructions on a way to commit suicide, plus all of the materials needed to do so?

I'd call it an automated "Frequently purchased together" recommendation.

Children do not have the kinds of rights you think they should have. And until they are adults, we protect them from harm.

And society is obligated to not work against our societal norms. Amazon will lose this case and will make the necessary changes.

Amazon continuously demonstrates a dirt bag mentality. Few employees last more than 6 months and they have such a bad reputation. And the more we know about there shady ways… the worse it gets.

Because society values family and children more than ‘censorship concerns’.

>I won't even address the "suicide kit" claim since that is simply sensationalist reporting.

It's a term commonly used in sucide forums for at least decade.

It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children.

I think internet contrarianism has warped everyone’s brains into an unrecognizable state.

The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling. The fact that HN readers are doing the same is incomprehensible.

As a society we can stop companies from mixing chemicals that kill teenagers in minutes and instructions on how to do just that with standard household purchases.

We can put safeguards around sales of chemicals like that and our societal ability to preserve self-expression will be fine when we do.

> It’s not censorship it’s product liability. The product fucking kills children.

Amazon sells millions of products that could, in fact, kill children. Just go to:

Health & Household > Health Care > OTC Medications & Treatments

That clearly isn't the issue at the center of this lawsuit, since if it were there are far lower hanging fruit.

> The fact that Amazon is defending this behavior instead of saying oh shit we fucked up and dedicating a fraction of a basis point of a days profit to fixing it is apalling.

Because once you do that it only emboldens additional lawsuits and calls for censorship. In effect Amazon would be admitting all future liability, every product that could kill a child (which, as I said, is millions) they're now liable for.

> As a society we can stop [..] instructions on how to do just that

You start with "this isn't censorship, this is access to chemicals" but end with "why can't we as a society censor this type of information?"

We judge these things as a matter of degree. Like any heavy object could kill children, but some objects are more likely to do so than others. We decide how much protection to put around access to them by evaluating cost/benefit relationships.

We use those tools of analysis decide that selling suicide kits as described in the article, even after learning of the consequences, is fucking insane and indefensible.

We do that because we are rational members of society instead of autonomous algorithmic message board argument bots (or attorneys) who have developed a sociopathic disregard for the well being of others and basic common sense.

15 to 20 extra strength Tylenol can kill most children - and it’s used quite frequently in intentional attempts - literally 100s of times more often than sodium nitrite. Your argument has no merit.

Ingesting table salt or drinking soy sauce is also a method of suicide and has killed many children and adults. Plenty of items that have perfectly legitimate uses and which should remain 100% legal can have deadly effects if misused. You can try censoring the information on how to misuse the substances, but that's never going to be very successful.

I agree. The point that this article doesn't should be on addressing the underlying issue. We can ban this one method and another will take it's place. Ways of getting people help and possibly avoiding whatever scenarios are leading to this should be looked at.

I think you underestimate how easy it would be to walk into most stores and find something to kill yourself with, if you have the right information. Any pharmacy, hardware store, walmart type store, grocery store, etc.

10 grams of Tylenol (so 20 extra strength, or just 15 arthritis strength pills) can cause enough liver toxicity to kill.

Tylenol overdoses both intentional and unintentional dwarf this sodium nitrite nonsense scare bullshit by 1000s.

> That's the nature of censorship

Censorship does not involve the exchange of money for goods.

> HN hates Amazon

Are you joking? Amazon is one of the A's in FAANG, the mostly highly coveted pseudo-conglomerate to be employed by on HN. People trumpet their roles at FAANG every day here, and most of the rest fawn up to them non-stop.

And that's not even getting started on the obsession with AWS here.

I don't know, whenever anyone on any forum posts "I'm at FAANG and I hate it, I want to die", it's always Amazon.

Everyone I know with other options ignores Amazon recruiters.

I don't think this is a niche opinion, though I wouldn't go as far as saying "HN hates Amazon". Hell, I don't even hate Amazon, I buy stuff there all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com