Elizabeth Warren Demands That Amazon Hide Books

[watsup]

Which ones?

Lots of them.

 

[Rawley]

Is there some reason you want this information to remain hidden? Everyone needs to know more about how these algorithms work. They're having a much larger impact on our society than people realize.

"What do you have to hide?" Is that your argument? Quantify this "impact" on society of the availability of these books you want to burn.

 

[watsup]

"What do you have to hide?" Is that your argument? Quantify this "impact" on society of the availability of these books you want to burn.

Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary severe illnesses and deaths among those who believe the unscientific garbage delivered in these books, as well as spreading the COVID to friends and relatives who then potentially also have the same highly negative results. The authors are snake oil salesman who put personal profit over the lives of others. And many of the snake oil salesmen have actually succumbed after spreading their lies.

 

[COTO]

Anyone can ask.

Of course anyone can ask. The question is: Should she be asking, and on a formal letter with the "Senate of the United States" letterhead no less?

The answer to that question is 'no'. Neither a private citizen nor a United States Senator has any business asking retailers to blacklist contrarian medical research, particularly when they're doing so for political reasons.

 

[Rawley]

Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary severe illnesses and deaths among those who believe the unscientific garbage delivered in these books, as well as spreading the COVID to friends and relatives who then potentially also have the same highly negative results. The authors are snake oil salesman who put personal profit over the lives of others. And many of the snake oil salesmen have actually succumbed after spreading their lies.

Thanks for your opinion. You carry the administration's water well. Do you have any actual evidence that these books you want to ban have actually harmed people. Even if you do, good luck trying to suppress them. If they can't suppress bombmaking books, what makes you think you'll have luck banning books you disagree with as "misinformation?"

 

[Deuce]

The issue as I understand it, is Warren believes the algorithms are giving special priority to specific titles (esp. as related to Covid) over others. She wants to have special access to pour over all of their secret algorithms to find proof of her belief, so she can stop what she perceives as a hidden special agenda. I think it's obvious that she believes the titles getting better placement are skewed towards anti-science. I don't think that's the case. But suppose for a moment, she's right. How is this different than those who perceive Trump unfairly lost to fraud, demanding to have access to all of the voting machines and algorithms? Why should they get special access to all of the machine vendor's proprietary information and years of R&D, just to find a needle in the haystack they can use to discredit them? That doesn't sound very fair to me.

But on the matter of what one might consider low quality sources rising to the top (illogically). I've seen this happen a lot over the years. Look at the Kardashians and more recently Nicki Manaj. Ive found that the more specialized the experts in any matter, the smaller their audience. In topics related to science, it's very easy to lull the masses to buy into laymen books written by non experts. Even easier to push politically biased scientific topics by non experts. I wouldn't doubt this is factually the case with popular covid titles. But I don't really think we should try to prevent this -- people should allow others to be heard and use their own critical thinking to solidify their beliefs.

I think you're projecting a conspiracy theory because you just don't like Warren.

 

[Luce]

Of course anyone can ask. The question is: Should she be asking, and on a formal letter with the "Senate of the United States" letterhead no less?

The answer to that question is 'no'. Neither a private citizen nor a United States Senator has any business asking retailers to blacklist contrarian medical research, particularly when they're doing so for political reasons.

There is nothing illegal or improper concerning her letter.

 

[Manc Skipper]

But then that begs the question, who writes the algorithms that determine what is misinformation and what isn't?

Frankly, I think I'd rather know who the authoritarian is deciding what I can read/view rather than some unknown, energy drink guzzling, programmer working out of his parent's basement with a pizza on his belly and donuts in his shirt pocket.

Sounds like a prime covid denier!

 

[Deuce]

"What do you have to hide?" Is that your argument? Quantify this "impact" on society of the availability of these books you want to burn.

Until you can discuss this rationally like an adult without your insane accusations about "book burning," then I'm not quantifying shit.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Unfortunately. the way millions around the world have bought into crazy conspiracy theories because they just like the ideas, tends to disprove your thoughts on how well people recognize disinformation. Imo, the conspiracy theory industry has become one of the more destructive influences in the world since social media etc empowered it. I know otherwise really intelligent people who just have some sort of mindset that embraces conspiracy theories, and it definitely impacts their families lives.

Well, yes, there were a ton of libruls buying into that lunatic Russian Collusion hoax.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Elizabeth Warren Demands That Amazon Crack Down on COVID Misinformation

Amazon's customers are apparently unable to judge the veracity of COVID-related information for themselves.

reason.com

Here you have the federal govt yet against asking a bookseller to hide books the federal govt doesnt agree with. The only thing missing from her letter is 'or else'. Sadly Amazon will likely go along, as they already shown a few times they do not respect free speech or limited govt. And since most people dont care either, Amazon will go along, make lots of money, give lots of it to the govt, in taxes and campaign donations, and get favorable treatment from the govt.

Simply going along with the govts tyranny is more valuable to politicians than money. And the minority of us with principles will continue to get screwed from all sides.

Let the book burning begin!

 

[Rawley]

Until you can discuss this rationally like an adult without your insane accusations about "book burning," then I'm not quantifying shit.

Given that you won't even admit what you are seeking is the digital equivalent to book burning, I don't see any merit in discussing this with you any further either.

 

[jonny5]

Let the book burning begin!

View attachment 67354367

While I think they would like to do that, I think they know better and we wont quite get to that point. Instead, they will just defacto limit access as Warren is doing. First its recommending they dont point people towards books they dont like. Next it will be reccomending they dont sell them. And we already know that amazon and ebay have colluded not to sell some books. Publishers have colluded to not publish some books that go against the govt line.

 

[Fishking]

Elizabeth Warren Demands That Amazon Crack Down on COVID Misinformation

Amazon's customers are apparently unable to judge the veracity of COVID-related information for themselves.

reason.com

Here you have the federal govt yet against asking a bookseller to hide books the federal govt doesnt agree with. The only thing missing from her letter is 'or else'. Sadly Amazon will likely go along, as they already shown a few times they do not respect free speech or limited govt. And since most people dont care either, Amazon will go along, make lots of money, give lots of it to the govt, in taxes and campaign donations, and get favorable treatment from the govt.

Simply going along with the govts tyranny is more valuable to politicians than money. And the minority of us with principles will continue to get screwed from all sides.

Leftists were never against book burning. They only were against books they liked being burned.

 

[Roadvirus]

She has no right to write a letter stating her opinion? So much for the first amendment.

It's very bad optics for an elected official of ANY POLITICAL PARTY to be advocating the removal of certain books from an American company's website or store.

Yes, fighting disinformation regarding COVID/the vaccine is key to finally stomping it out, but still....

 

[Deuce]

It's very bad optics for an elected official of ANY POLITICAL PARTY to be advocating the removal of certain books from an American company's website or store.

Speaking of disinformation, this is not what she advocated or asked for.

She asked Amazon to review its recommendation algorithms to see why these disinformation books seemed to be recommended so regularly over good information.

 

[Rawley]

It's very bad optics for an elected official of ANY POLITICAL PARTY to be advocating the removal of certain books from an American company's website or store.

Yes, fighting disinformation regarding COVID/the vaccine is key to finally stomping it out, but still....

That's the rub, isn't it?

Take Ivermectin for example. This drug has uniformly been dismissed as "misinformation" simply, IMHO, because it goes against the administration's and big Pharma push for vaccinations. Matt Taibbi had a great piece on this a few weeks back.

Ivermectin: Can a Drug Be "Right-Wing"?

A potential Covid-19 treatment has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populists

taibbi.substack.com

Similarly with respect to the "unvaccinated." They are now the enemy, to be shunned, scorned, shamed and stoned in the public square. Any publications that promote natural immunity are to be banned as "misinformation." In spite of the fact that one of the largest COVID research projects to date, out of Israel, with tens of thousands of participants has shown that natural immunity is 13- 27 times more robust than the vaccines. THis has to be dismissed as "misinformation" as it cuts to the heart of the Biden's vaccine mandate.

 

[maxparrish]

There is nothing illegal or improper concerning her letter.

If there is one consistency in Warren's world view it is her hatred of private power. She hates it when it disagrees with her, and she still hates it when it agrees with her. For Warren it is not a matter of free expression or responsible censorship, the bottom line issue is over WHO makes those choices. In other words she believes the government is the font of moral authority and should hold unitary power over who says what, and when in public discourse...not a private entity (including those considered more progressive).

Paradoxically, Warren is same individual who publicly chastised FACEBOOK for banning Trump and is now chastising AMAZON for NOT banning or at least repressing certain authors. It is difficult to square this circle but it makes sense in that she favors breaking up both companies (and all big tech) REGARDLESS of whether or not they do her bidding. Banning Trump would have been fine with her, EXCEPT, as she complained, it was done by private power. And such power in the hands of a company vexes her...even more so when they don't do her bidding.

(Another paradox is this is same women who spent YEARS misleading co-workers, employers, and the public on her native American identity...someone who is now pot banging over "misleading" authors. )

Anyway, Warren is pretty cold blooded about repressing people, and more than happy to write letters to stakeholders to get them banned, derailed or smeared. Several years ago she did it to an economist of stature associated with Brookings, and has no problem with doing so against several COVID contrarians. That a US Senator should indulge in brow beating the most important book outlet in America, and demanding private technical information on its own marketing process is not only inappropriate, but quite typical of her belief of the STATE as the supreme controller of all private behavior and attitudes.

PS - On a personal note, is it any surprise that she was a big defender and admirer of Daenerys Targaryen?

 

[Luce]

If there is one consistency in Warren's world view it is her hatred of private power. She hates it when it disagrees with her, and still hates it when it agrees with her. For Liz it is not a matter of free expression or responsible censorship, the bottom line issue is over WHO makes those choices. In other words she believes the government is the font of moral authority and should hold unitary power over who says what, and when in public discourse...not a private entity (including those considered more progressive).

Paradoxically, this is same individual who publicly chastised FACEBOOK for banning Trump and is now chastising AMAZON for NOT banning or at least repressing certain authors. It is difficult to square this circle except in noting that she favors breaking up both companies (and all big tech) REGARDLESS of whether or not they do her bidding. Banning Trump would have been fine with her, EXCEPT, as she complained, it was done by private power. And such power in the hands of a company vexes her.

(Another paradox is this is same women who spent YEARS misleading co-workers, employers, and the public on her native American identity...someone who is now pot banging over "misleading" authorship. And that circle cannot be squared, other than by noting the hypocrisy.)

Anyway, Warren is pretty cold blooded about repressing people, and more than happy to write letters to stakeholders to get them banned, derailed or smeared. Several years ago she did it to an economist of stature associated with Brookings, and has no problem with doing so against several COVID contrarians. That a US Senator should indulge in brow beating the most important book outlet in America, and demanding private technical information on its own marketing process is not only inappropriate, but quite typical of her belief of the STATE as the supreme controller of all private behavior and attitudes.

PS - On a personal note, is it any surprise that she was a big defender and admirer of Daenerys Targaryen?

That's all very well. There was nothing illegal or improper about her letter.

Also, Daenerys Targaryen is a fictional character. Just putting that out there.

 

[Deuce]

Paradoxically, Warren is same individual who publicly chastised FACEBOOK for banning Trump and is now chastising AMAZON for NOT banning or at least repressing certain authors.

Again, she didn't ask for the book to be banned or "repressed."

 

[Nickyjo]

Who gets to decide what is "misinformation" and what isn't?

Why Donald Trump, of course.

Can we grow up? Spreading false information during an emergency should be sanctioned. If the government warns people that the levees will soon overflow or a dam is cracking, what is the proper response if someone contradicts that message and tells people to go back home, nothing to see here? If someone publishes a book that says that syphlis cures itself, shouldn't that be placed in the back of the bookstore? Seems to me we rejected a president for, among other things, minimizing and spreading false info on the pandemic.

 

[Ishm]

Well, yes, there were a ton of libruls buying into that lunatic Russian Collusion hoax.

Conspiracy theory stupidty knows no political boundaries. Looney leftists think 5G radio spreads covid, while the radical right follow Qanon etc. The radical right are just more vocal and more obviously crazy at this point in time.

 

[maxparrish]

Again, she didn't ask for the book to be banned or "repressed."

a) There isn't any doubt that she asked for the banishment or repression of publications and/or authors, some by name. She specifically endorsed the actions and policies of Facebook in removal of pages, of groups, of accounts that spread opinion that Warren does not like, including to "remove misleading posts", or repress reading by displaying them less prominently. She also endorsed the policy of Twitter to prohibit users from conveying opinion and their repression by banishment. And finally she reminded Amazon that such repression isn't unprecedented, and strongly implied that it is legitimate because has already occurred at Facebook on other books and their subject matter.

b) Nanny statist Warren not only asked for their "immediate review" of Amazon’s algorithms but she was so presumptuous as to issue a (threatening?) deadline to a business to do so "within 14 days" and to "provide both a public report on the extent to which Amazon’s algorithms are directing consumers to books and other products containing COVID19 misinformation" AND to demonstrate "a plan to modify these algorithms so that they no longer do so."

Ms. Warren's impertinent and presumptuous directivities, as if she is a free speech regulator and Amazon's boss, was in tone and content entirely unacceptable in society that presumes itself to be free of state harassment. Her demagogic inability to provide common courtesy and polite inquiry to any American's citizen, and pathological need to act as a society's "Queen Mother" is unacceptable.

Even Warren Buffett, a reliable and generous Democrat, views her personae as unproductive, mean, and hateful.

So again, no surprise she admired a heavy handed, moralistic, and cold blooded personae in Game of Thrones. In the world of non-fiction, she embodies it.

 

[Deuce]

a) There isn't any doubt that she asked for the banishment or repression of publications and/or authors, some by name. She specifically endorsed the actions and policies of Facebook in removal of pages, of groups, of accounts that spread opinion that Warren does not like, including to "remove misleading posts", or repress reading by displaying them less prominently. She also endorsed the policy of Twitter to prohibit users from conveying opinion and their repression by banishment. And finally she reminded Amazon that such repression isn't unprecedented, and strongly implied that it is legitimate because has already occurred at Facebook on other books and their subject matter.

b) Nanny statist Warren not only asked for their "immediate review" of Amazon’s algorithms but she was so presumptuous as to issue a (threatening?) deadline to a business to do so "within 14 days" and to "provide both a public report on the extent to which Amazon’s algorithms are directing consumers to books and other products containing COVID19 misinformation" AND to demonstrate "a plan to modify these algorithms so that they no longer do so."

Ms. Warren's impertinent and presumptuous directivities, as if she is a free speech regulator and Amazon's boss, was in tone and content entirely unacceptable in society that presumes itself to be free of state harassment. Her demagogic inability to provide common courtesy and polite inquiry to any American's citizen, and pathological need to act as a society's "Queen Mother" is unacceptable.

Even Warren Buffett, a reliable and generous Democrat, views her personae as unproductive, mean, and hateful.

So again, no surprise she admired a heavy handed, moralistic, and cold blooded personae in Game of Thrones. In the world of non-fiction, she embodies it.

Literally none of this matters. Her letter said what it said, and not what you pretend it said.

Threatening. LOL. More victim complex from the right.

 

[maxparrish]

Literally none of this matters. Her letter said what it said, and not what you pretend it said.

Threatening. LOL. More victim complex from the right.

Of course it said what it said; I was reading the letter while summarizing and quoting its odious content.

That all you can provide is a burp of one or two sentences of unsupported denial says it all - Warren is guilty as charged.