I think it's fair and square for Simon and Schuster, for example, to refuse to publish Hawley's book. And equally fair for him to take it to the type of publisher that serves the type of market he fits into. It's like reading the Washington Post vs. the supermarket rag: there's a place for both. One is for the folks who like reality, and the other for those who prefer...other types of reading.
I agree that it is a little bit creepy to see a country-wide declaration by publishers as you have shown above, and the same goes for Amazon taking control of closing down Parler - and Twitter shutting down Trump. But I would argue that it only goes beyond the point of what's reasonable if Parler and Trump - as examples - were permanently prevented or prohibited from going elsewhere. A quick read of Amazon's court papers clarifies beyond any doubt why they had to do something. To my mind, the real question is, should this be left up to companies and businesses to decide?
If the alternative is government regulation of what people can and cannot say on the web or in books, then it's probably just as well to let nature take its course. As long as people with differing opinions can still find an outlet and therefore an audience, we should be safe from turning into, say, China. Their citizens cannot speak freely even on the other side of the globe.
Now THAT's oppression.
As to how to get people to think critically and analyze their sources of information more effectively...um, I'm stumped on that one. Why do some people seem to learn this naturally, and others...not so much...?
It doesn't help that online media in particular seem to push sensational content to gain traffic. That is something that I believe should be corrected, because it actively selects for misleading content and produces an imbalanced picture of what people in general think and do in the world.
I think it's fair and square for Simon and Schuster, for example, to refuse to publish Hawley's book. And equally fair for him to take it to the type of publisher that serves the type of market he fits into. It's like reading the Washington Post vs. the supermarket rag: there's a place for both. One is for the folks who like reality, and the other for those who prefer...other types of reading.
I agree that it is a little bit creepy to see a country-wide declaration by publishers as you have shown above, and the same goes for Amazon taking control of closing down Parler - and Twitter shutting down Trump. But I would argue that it only goes beyond the point of what's reasonable if Parler and Trump - as examples - were permanently prevented or prohibited from going elsewhere. A quick read of Amazon's court papers clarifies beyond any doubt why they had to do something. To my mind, the real question is, should this be left up to companies and businesses to decide?
If the alternative is government regulation of what people can and cannot say on the web or in books, then it's probably just as well to let nature take its course. As long as people with differing opinions can still find an outlet and therefore an audience, we should be safe from turning into, say, China. Their citizens cannot speak freely even on the other side of the globe.
Now THAT's oppression.
As to how to get people to think critically and analyze their sources of information more effectively...um, I'm stumped on that one. Why do some people seem to learn this naturally, and others...not so much...?
It doesn't help that online media in particular seem to push sensational content to gain traffic. That is something that I believe should be corrected, because it actively selects for misleading content and produces an imbalanced picture of what people in general think and do in the world.