You have posted plenty of anti muslim rhetoric that could easily be argued against in that way, so don't pretend that you haven't. People are free to share whatever ideas about health and medicine that they want, it becomes problematic if they do so under the guise of a medical professional giving medical advice, and there is plenty of recourse against people who engage in the latter and cause harm. Personally I'm not comfortable with large corporations picking and choosing what ideas people should be exposed to but that's just me.

Personally, I don't think you read the article Gooms posted. :/

I did, and the books undoubtedly fall under the category of personal advice. It is no different in principle to someone publishing a book saying being vegan is super healthy and advising that the reader and their family become vegan.

While I'm still formulating an opinion on Amazon's decision, the bolded is false comparison.

Joe Rogan had a fun piece in this where his friend and fellow fascy bootlicker Tim Poole inadvertently showed why this argument is fucking dumb. Yes there is an inherent bias towards conservatives in the tos of social platforms. Because there are rules against bigotry, harassment and general shitty behaviour which are basically the core tenets of reactionaries, fascists and 'free speech warriors'. But that's fine. We have a bias against people who engage in behaviours that harm others. If your ideology is based around being a cunt to people then it is good to be biased against your ideology.

This post was edited by TransTankie on Mar 20 2019 10:20pm

Elaborate? They are both giving their personal opinion/advice on a contended health issue and framing it as such.

Because the claims, possible conclusions, and the potential implementation are wildly disparate.

The autism/vaccine link is binary: Either vaccines cause autism, or they don't. Due to its binary nature, there is a scientific conclusion for this link, and we know that vaccines do not cause autism. Now, should a person go ahead and implement this into their life anyway, we're looking at potentially major public health issues and/or personal consequences, ranging from the sickness/death of the person's child, to things as large as a widening gap in herd immunity.

The vegan and health claim, as it has been discussed thus far, does not operate on a binary. Someone sharing an opinion that a vegan diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet does not mean that an omnivorous diet is unhealthy itself. Still, regardless, should someone decide to implement veganism in their life, the consequences are essentially negligible.

I wouldn't necessarily say the potential consequences of adopting a vegan diet are negligible, especially for pregnant women and for young children but they are less severe for sure. Still I have plenty of reserves about censoring conversation about controversial medical topics and practices given how often consensus on these things is overturned or driven by "generous" third party benefactors.

How should censorship for a supplier of books work though? If you take issue with Amazon removing the book from their inventory, do you similarly have an issue with Amazon refusing to carry the book and have it be part of their inventory to begin with?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Mar 20 2019 11:55pm

Except that "being a cunt" is subjective and anyone with an IQ over 50 can see why this is bad for example, if you are telling lefties to #learntocode, you are "being a cunt" and will be promptly removed however, it is not "being a cunt" to call for the death of a kid with a MAGA hat on.

In in the end this only really ends in two ways. Courts will end up dismantling this idealogical non-sense via massively large lawsuits, antitrust laws, etc. towards MSM / big tech or somewhere not too long down the line I will mourn the death of many Americans that will pay the iron price to remind everyone that fascism is not welcome in the west.

This post was edited by LA-Leviathan on Mar 20 2019 11:51pm