[chii]

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship

so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

[ilikehurdles]

If you own a bookstore, you should be able to curate its content at your leisure, which includes but is not limited to removing content that you find objectionable. I don't see how this is a bad outcome, because the alternative -- being forced to carry books on your shelves that you have no power to remove sounds like a much worse outcome.

I, a terrible author, am not entitled to your bookstore's audience.

[Psychlist]

Yes, if that's what it takes.

Flip it around: Imagine you have a tattoo. You're publishing the one tattoo therefore "free speech" means you have to publish all the tattoos? Should you be obliged to allow a big "Kick whites out of America" tattoo next to whatever tattoo you have chosen to wear?

[RonanTheGrey]

Promoting a specific kind of speech is not equivalent to not acting on speech.

Leaving a piece of speech alone and simply doing nothing to it doesn't count as promoting it. That's exactly what section 230 in the USC means.

[kelnos]

If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them.

Either way: still not censorship.

[BurningFrog]

Or perhaps the society I live in is so toxic that my sane ideas can't reach out.

To spell it out, your reasoning assumes that the prevailing consensus in any society is good.

[kortilla]

Do you know what censorship means? It’s quite literally the textbook definition (explicitly blocking books because of the ideas in them) so I’m curious what you think censorship is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

[criddell]

Would you also say if I were to ask you to leave my house because I got tired of listening to you, I'd be infringing on your free speech rights? Is that different than me removing your book from my store?

[strken]

There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech. One can only have their right breached by the government, but one can be censored by anyone who has the power to read their incoming/outgoing communications and modify or remove parts.

There's a difference between your home, which is a privately owned private space, and a mall, which is a privately owned public space. Youtube is more like a mall or a newspaper conglomerate than your house. For it to have a bias when censoring content can be objectionable in the same way that a big media conglomerate with a bias can be objectionable.

[criddell]

> There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech.

So if I ask you to leave my house because I don't want to listen to you any more, am I violating the global ethical principle of free speech?

[strken]

You had replied to a comment about censorship with a rhetorical question about free speech rights. The first paragraph in my answer was in response to this conflation: censorship by a private company is still censorship, rights aren't relevant.

The second paragraph of my response is more relevant here. Your house is not open to the general public except for me, it does not contain political discourse from billions of people, it's not owned by a company with a market cap close to a trillion dollars, and it has a plethora of viable alternatives.

If I was a political candidate and you asked me to leave your debate venue, I don't know whether you'd be right, but it would certainly be more controversial than if you asked me to leave your house.

[kortilla]

Censorship is censorship. I’m not sure why you’re prattling on about free speech rights.

[chii]

The difference is that you would be forced to hear the speech in the house, but you are not forced to read/buy the book from the bookstore.

Removing it from the bookstore prevents those who wants the book from getting it. Having it in the bookstore doesn't force those who don't want it from reading it!

[andrewzah]

It does, however, force bookstore owners to carry any and every book. Which is a ridiculous proposition.

Instead, you can choose to not support that bookstore owner by shopping somewhere else and rewarding the bookstore owner that -does- carry it. Bookstore owners are not the government, they're free to do all sorts of things and you're free to be a patron or not.

[chii]

> force bookstore owners to carry any and every book. Which is a ridiculous proposition

it is ridiculous when there's physical constraints, but for digital goods, such as youtube, there's almost no physical constraints.

Noone is saying the bookstore must promote or give prominence to all books equally. But preventing the books from existing by virtue of their platform size is wrong.

[FridgeSeal]

Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism?

In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.