Surprised by the majority of comments here. How many of you have actually looked at these pictures? A private entity decided to stop publishing certain things. Another private entity is declining to sell old copies of said things. This is not “cancel culture” like conservative commentators want to make it out to be - and I think the publisher and now eBay are making the right call - children are impressionable, and presenting racial caricatures like these to them is not good.
Like how exposure to pictures of demons and pretending to be wizards turns young D&D players into satanists? And exposure to violent rap lyrics turns them into murderers?
I have looked at the pictures, some make me cringe a bit, others don't seem like a big deal to me. And ultimately the Seuss copyright holders can do what they want, it's their property. I'm not sure why eBay feels the need to get involved. But I found the "think of the children" arguments for banning media equally unconvincing when they were conservative talking points thirty years ago.
Edit: Also, almost all kids will be exposed to these books with a parent present, having it read to them. The parent can contextualize the images however they like, reducing any risk of bad 'impressions'.
I saw some of the images. eBay's actions seem a bit heavy handed, but I think its entirely appropriate that the Seuss estate wishes to stop producing new copies. If I was a parent and I randomly bought a Seuss book and got the racist caricature I saw, I'd be disappointed in the brand.
Most purchasers of Seuss books are not looking to start a dialog with their toddler about racism.
A handful of companies influencing the overton window of the entire nation in response to easily upset Twitter mobs is precisely what I consider to be part of cancel culture.
> I think the publisher and now eBay are making the right call - children are impressionable, and presenting racial caricatures like these to them is not good.
The point is that the publisher and ebay choosing not to participate in commerce related to these books isn't telling you to do anything, and they don't have any obligation to participate in that commerce.
If the publisher was calling for the government to supervise the books that you read to your children, well then you'd have a point.
According to what? A social contract? The written law? Some ethical/moral foundation?
The answer depends on what standard you're using.
In my opinion, yes they do have that responsibility. Once you attain a level of social and economic power on par with eBay, you have the responsibility to ensure that your actions do not limit free access to information.
If we were talking about a company that does 10k in sales a year -- they do not have that responsibility. But since we're talking about a company that does 4B in sales a year -- yes, according to my moral foundation, they do have that responsibility.
I value free speech and the freedom of expression pretty high on my list of important things though, while it seems like you value the ability of a billion dollar corporation to profit and maintain their brand image much higher than that.
I think you might be correct, I tend to see copyright itself as censorious, but copyright on something you have no intent allowing access to seems downright unacceptable.
There will always be alternative marketplaces hosted by alternative web hosts that are willing to continue doing business with companies that are deemed dangerous to society...
...until banks and merchant processors cut off financial access to these "dangerous" entities and their service providers.
Wikileaks was a victim of this year's ago, and served as a great example of why cryptocurrencies are important.
