To me, the hate against "destroying books" is kinda silly. The reason we're against destroying books is because the Nazis did it to destroy information.

This situation has absolutely no relation to that. This is the exact opposite, and the only reason this information isn't available publicly and is in risk of getting lost is copyright law.

TLDR: Amazon isn't the nazis in this story, copyright law is.

▲

krunck an hour ago | parent [-]

Making the verbatim content of the book lost forever is not equivalent to burning them? I'd even wager that the CO2 emissions of the scan,shred, and train process is even higher than burning.

	▲	boxed 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Making the verbatim content of the book lost forever is not equivalent to burning them? The verbatim content are the words, not the paper. Books are lost all the time because the last book ended up in a landfill. But if an AI lab digitizes it, now it's stored in an extremely redundant storage lake in a datacenter and the company has huge incentives to make sure they don't ever lose that data.