This is a topic that people on both sides of the political spectrum often get wrong.
Amazon's tactics are getting the company into trouble with some in the publishing world. The author accuses Amazon of a bait-and-switch with the literary industry, where Amazon lured authors and publishers into their nest, only to constrict them into a slow and painful death.
Many on the left would take this kind of journalism as a call to government intervention. There is a long history of this kind of activism. From Upton Sinclair's The Jungle to Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, writers' exposés have been followed up with regulation many times.
And some on the right would insist that if people didn't like what Amazon is doing, then they don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing the publishers to cut these deals. If it's not mutually beneficial for everyone involved, there wouldn't be a market for it. Therefore, just be quiet and let business go as usual. It's not your business to criticize the dealings of others.
I am far more inclined to the second line of argument. But, I don't see why it contradicts step one of the first point. We have freedom of speech. If someone is concerned about a website's business practices, is it not fair to express those opinions? After learning more, some customers might also be concerned with the future of books if Amazon grows too powerful. Some of those customers might even try to build a business to compete with Amazon on a platform that is more fair to publishers. The "creative destruction" of capitalism takes effect, and Amazon grows weaker. Obviously with the distinction between free speech and slander, free market advocates should not decry every publisher's criticism of a company. These can be without also inviting further government intrusion in the private sector.
No comments:
Post a Comment