[waffleiron]

> They are censoring search results. As in, the customer, who Amazon makes money off by showing them what they want, is not being shown items that relate to what they searched for.

But that happens in the US too, if I want to ISIS's propaganda magazine on Amazon is it censorship that I can't find those? If I look for porn on youtube, is it censorship I can't find it?

[pas]

youtube doesn't want to. there's plenty of porn sites in the US. there's plenty of money in the porn industry too.

sure, there's a social stigma. but if google/youtube/alphabet wanted to (as in they think there's enough money to be made in that sector) they would do it.

US conservatism does interfere with a lot of personal things (cough), but at least the current status quo is that it does not want to restrict selling data. (though there's a big think-of-the-children scare, and with the same sustained push for banning this or that this could change eventually)

[smileybarry]

There's a world of a difference between pride, ISIS, and porn.

[waffleiron]

I am not arguing that they are the same, have a look at what I quoted. This is really annoying me with HN, people looking for an easy dismissal of an argument instead of trying to actually talk about the underlying point.

The point that I am trying to make is that the argument I quoted doesn't work, because we already have situations where someone might look for something and can't find it.

I am not agreeing this is good, I am not saying it's the same, I am just trying to interact with a specific argument. This is a complex topic about cultural differences and ethics, let's try to stay curious and not just give shallow dismissals.

[smileybarry]

The examples you used for that point are bad because they come off as false equivalence, and “porn on YouTube” (age rating) and “ISIS books on Amazon” (murder) already have very legitimate justifications. Banning pride can be just a shirt with the word “gay”, and that’s absurd without needing an explanation.