6 votes

2600 denied access to U.K. stores due to fear of "Negative Publicity"

10 comments

  1. ruspaceni Link
    This is saddening, I remember enjoying their stuff quite a bit in my teens. I was just getting into hack-y side of tech and everywhere I looked held 2600 in high regard. I still might even have a...

    This is saddening, I remember enjoying their stuff quite a bit in my teens. I was just getting into hack-y side of tech and everywhere I looked held 2600 in high regard. I still might even have a 2600hz hoodie laying around in my moms attic come to think of it.

    Being honest though, I actually forgot they existed until now ;c

    4 votes
  2. oden Link
    I appreciate the "retro underground hacker" look, but yikes - that shadowed, white monospace text on a grey background is not the easiest thing to read.

    I appreciate the "retro underground hacker" look, but yikes - that shadowed, white monospace text on a grey background is not the easiest thing to read.

    4 votes
  3. [8]
    edenist Link
    While not necessarily due to any government or clandestine involvement, the fact that private businesses in the publishing industry are self-censoring due to fears of negative public reaction is a...

    While not necessarily due to any government or clandestine involvement, the fact that private businesses in the publishing industry are self-censoring due to fears of negative public reaction is a very worrying thought [No matter which side of an argument you are on].

    Arguably more so as we are heading down the road of filter bubble fuelled entrenchment of views.

    1. [7]
      Somebody Link Parent
      It's always been that way, though. I wouldn't expect a Christian bookstore to sell copies of Playboy. Would you? Of course not! That would cost them customers, and be bad for their business. Every...

      It's always been that way, though. I wouldn't expect a Christian bookstore to sell copies of Playboy. Would you? Of course not! That would cost them customers, and be bad for their business. Every business owner gets to decide what the want to sell. It's not a democracy. It's capitalism.

      8 votes
      1. [6]
        edenist Link Parent
        Sure, but we're not talking about a religious book store, are we? And the discussion isn't around whether or not they have the right; of course they do. The problem is that the in the very limited...

        Sure, but we're not talking about a religious book store, are we?

        And the discussion isn't around whether or not they have the right; of course they do. The problem is that the in the very limited remains of the print distribution industry, they are setting the barriers of self-censorship rather low.

        What's scary is that this isn't by legislation or public outcry or anything close to that. No, it's completely voluntary and speaks volumes about the levels of [perceived] risk-averseness we are seeing. It is worrying to me that when someone goes to browse available print media, they will see nothing but whatever 'safe', narrow minded range of identical publications have been accepted.

        1 vote
        1. [5]
          cfabbro (edited ) Link Parent
          Sure you're not talking about religion, but you are talking about a "hacker" magazine. And to the general public all "hacking" is bad so there is bound to be complaints, especially in the UK where...

          Sure you're not talking about religion, but you are talking about a "hacker" magazine. And to the general public all "hacking" is bad so there is bound to be complaints, especially in the UK where people love to write complaint letters (just ask the BBC!). ;) So frankly, given the Publisher can get a £10k fine per complaint, I really don't blame them for deciding not to carry 2600.

          2 votes
          1. [4]
            edenist Link Parent
            Well yeah. All of this information is basically on the linked page. I'm not saying the company doesn't have reasons for making said decisions, I'm saying it's pretty crazy that they need to make...

            Well yeah. All of this information is basically on the linked page.

            I'm not saying the company doesn't have reasons for making said decisions, I'm saying it's pretty crazy that they need to make decisions on that basis. £10K fine per complaint? They're really building a utopia of free thought for future generations.

            1. [3]
              cfabbro (edited ) Link Parent
              Oh, come on. 2600 is not banned from the Country and both physical and digital copies can still be purchased from their site. It's just not being carried by any stores in the UK. I don't...

              Oh, come on. 2600 is not banned from the Country and both physical and digital copies can still be purchased from their site. It's just not being carried by any stores in the UK. I don't understand what the big deal is, honestly.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                edenist Link Parent
                You don't think it's a problem that a company can be fined 10K for a complaint against an item they sell?

                You don't think it's a problem that a company can be fined 10K for a complaint against an item they sell?

                1. cfabbro (edited ) Link Parent
                  I think it sounds pretty steep... but I know nothing about the publishing industry in the UK and that may actually be pretty standard. And ultimately, that's the contract the retailers negotiated...

                  I think it sounds pretty steep... but I know nothing about the publishing industry in the UK and that may actually be pretty standard. And ultimately, that's the contract the retailers negotiated with the publisher and that the publisher accepted so <shrug>.

                  It's not like it's the government doing the fining so I still don't see what the big deal is. This is not censorship, it's just retailers being wary of carrying a "controversial" magazine they will potentially get complaints about from their customers (and potentially being forced to recall issues of as a result), and the publisher being wary of incurring the costs of those recalls.

                  1 vote