[zuuow]

I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated.

"Books" may not be correct in this context because it's been a single one thus far, but if another antisemitic book appears, they'd probably delete it too, so I'd argue it sounds more like a norm than a one-off event. By removing a book they didn't like, they opened a can of worms, so to say.

[chronial]

> I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated.

No, the reason is clearly stated. "Did not like" is a reason. I am sure there have been many books on that list that the people at spiegel didn't like. It's just that "I don not like that" is not the same as "this thing is considered by me and many others to spread antisemitic propaganda and I don want to support that".

The original statement implies that "we don't like it" is sufficient reason for the spiegel to remove a book from the list. That is just incorrect.

> ... they opened a can of worms, so to say.

Now you seem to be arguing that it is fine to spread a lie as long as you are sufficiently convinced that that lie will become truth in the future?

[zuuow]

If they removed a book because they didn't like it because it was antisemitic, then it's clear to me that they will most likely do so again in the future for antisemitism and, maybe, for other reasons.

That's what happens with having editorial control: either you play sides (by removing stuff you don't want and maybe pumping up stuff you like[]) or you don't play sides (by publishing the rank without modifying it). And Spiegel is playing sides here.

[]I'm not saying Spiegel has done or will do this, this is just an example.