Amazon censoring novels

[rubakhin]

Paraphrased from a few different Livejournal posts:

more information here (http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html) and here (http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/11369.html) and here (http://rydra-wong.livejournal.com/174790.html)

Amazon is stripping the sales ranks from GLBT books, thus preventing them from showing up in some bestseller lists and searches (and potentially directly damaging their sales), on the grounds that they are "adult" material.

(This is regardless of whether they contain any explicit sex. Meanwhile, books with explicit heterosexual sex scenes retain their sales rank, as long as they're not overtly marketed as "erotica".)

A quick search reveals that books that have had their sales ranks removed include James Baldwin's Giovanni's Room, Edmund White's A Boy's Own Story, Annie Proulx's Brokeback Mountain, and Jeanette Winterson's Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. Also some YA novels featuring gay characters.

Still retaining sales rank: Alan Moore's Lost Girls. A collection of Playboy centerfolds.

Also: they've even yanked the sales rank from Radclyffe Hall's The Well of Loneliness. For reference, the "sex scene" in The Well of Loneliness consists in its entirety of the words "And that night they were not divided."

Also without sales rank: Zami. Rubyfruit Jungle. Stone Butch Blues. And assorted autobiographies about being trans. And they've pulled the sales rank off E.M. Forster's Maurice.

I've also just read that they're pulling the ranks from some feminist materials as well, and stuff like a guide to intimacy for the disabled and Advocate's guide to colleges for LGBT students. Nice.


I just posted this at Myth Weavers and they also asked for some other references. There aren't really any as it just hit the blogs on the ninth (http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/11560.html)), but here are some other sites talking about it:

The romance novel community weighs (http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/04/12/amazon-censors-its-rankings-search-results-to-protect-us-against-glbt-books/) in (http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/amazon-rank/)

Queer rights blog (http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-amazon-censoring-lgbt-books.html)

Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x126043)

Twitter (http://hashtags.org/tag/amazonfail)

The Straight Dope (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=513856) and Something Awful (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3116673&pagenumber=1) forums

Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/12/719278/-Amazons-New-Moralityfor-your-protection)

Jezebel.com (http://jezebel.com/5209088/why-is-amazon-removing-the-sales-rankings-from-gay-lesbian-books)

One of the authors whose work was affected (http://craigspoplife.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-amazon-homophobic.html)

Another author (http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK211IP2AQ0XSE9)

Sources aren't really necessary though, since you can confirm this all for yourself on Amazon, of course. For instance, acclaimed lesbian novel Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit (http://www.amazon.com/Oranges-Are-Not-Only-Fruit/dp/0802135161/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239553767&sr=1-1) lacks a sales ranking, whereas Perdido Street Station (http://www.amazon.com/Perdido-Street-Station-China-Mieville/dp/0345459407/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239553858&sr=8-1) has got one.

And you can see how much it may impact sales. It's a bitch to search for certain novels - like I searched under All Departments (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_kinc?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Mysterious+Skin&x=0&y=0) (in other words, the front page search) for one of my very favorite books, Mysterious Skin (it's about two sexually abused boys and how they deal with what happened to them) and the paperback has disappeared completely. The closest I got was the Kindle edition (which has its own rankings which appear to be unaffected by all this) and even the Kindle ebook was beneath all sorts of things, such as an unrelated Swedish art house film and the soundtrack to the film adaptation. I had to search directly under Books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Mysterious+Skin&x=0&y=0) before I found it. It's not like it's an unpopular book, it's still in print, it got a movie a couple years back, and I could walk into Barnes & Noble right now and buy it off the shelf.

:smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

[SurlySeraph]

This is decidedly dishonest and unethical, and completely inconsistent with everything I thought about Amazon.com. Guess I should email them to protest.

[Reinboom]

This is quite dumbfounding.
I believe that this topic needs to garner information further. Free market censorship, though technically legal, should be directly opposed.

My personal boycott on Amazon starts today then until a full fix of this situation and an apology.
:smallyuk:

[Quincunx]

I'll look into this further in the morning (going to sleep after this) but I've emptied out my wishlist for now. I'll certainly have to go offline to order one of these too--pesky international call rates.

[Fawkes]

I hate it when people do things do like this. At least they're still carrying the books, though. It's not unheard of for bookstores and even public libraries to ban 'objectionable' books from their shelves. It's ridiculous.

[InaVegt]

I have sent this e-mail to Amazon:


Dear Amazon,

I regret having to send this e-mail, since you are a valuable source of books that are unavailable or hard to find elsewhere.

However, it has recently come to my attention that you have made a decision that requires me to eliminate you from my list of business partners.

The decision is the bigotous removal of lgbt-related material from best seller lists and the high difficulty you have created to find lgbt-related material. This is behavior that I cannot condone from anyone I do business with.

Your statement that "adult-themed" material deserves such treatment might have flown if you hadn't exclusively delivered this treatment to lgbt-related material. In addition, many works that have been given this treatment hold less sexual content than twilight, which is listed as your best seller of 2008.

If you are interested in providing further explanations, I would welcome this, however, I cannot see how I can resume my patronage of your business if you continue such homophobic business practices that do not belong in the twentyfirst century.

Regards,

<name>

[Narkis]

Not surprising. They'd also censored the comments that complained about Spore's DRM, and some other stuff that I don't remember now. I have a feeling they fold as soon as someone "important" complains.

[Riffington]

One of the reasons you can't trust these lists.
Like when the New York Times had to create a "children's" genre just so Rowling wouldn't top their Bestseller list. And as for US News and World Report...

[Talic]

This is quite dumbfounding.
I believe that this topic needs to garner information further. Free market censorship, though technically legal, should be directly opposed.
Why? Do you not think that each individual and corporation does not have the right to choose what they sell, what they endorse, what they support, and what they promote?

If they choose to not promote material that you like, as distressing as you think it may be, you must acknowledge that it is their right to do so, on sites that they maintain and pay for to market material that they sell.

This isn't a matter of "technically" legal. It is FULLY legal, and indeed, one of the principles that the US was founded on. The ability of each man and group to choose what they support and follow, and what they don't promote, is protected under the laws Amazon operates under.

Your desire to see what you want pales in comparison to the NEED to protect those rights. After all, if you can't choose what you don't put on your site, what's to stop the other side from demanding every LGBT site show equal promoting to non-LGBT material? It would paralyze specialty sites, and make it very difficult for them to do business.

While you can disapprove of a company's views, and choose to show that disapproval by spending money elsewhere... You cannot disapprove of the right that gives them the ability to express that view, without also realizing that once you take that right away from one, you take it away from everyone.

I hate when people suggest things like this are "technically" legal, hinting that they shouldn't be. Everyone has the right to censor themselves. And commercial groups which allow others to use their property have the right to censor material on that property. A great example of this are the site rules in place on this very board concerning what can and cannot be posted. That's censorship. It's also legal, and A-OK, for the Giant to control what goes on in the place he works.


I will grant you. Amazon's view here is discriminatory. It's not nice. It's a bad view to have. But go after that view. Not their right to express it.

[Rutskarn]

Talic, I think what some of us mean is simply that we do not condone their actions. Obviously, it should be 100% legal to refuse to sell material you find distasteful--however, we have the right to protest this, to boycott the organization in question, and to request others do the same.

In your statements, you are 100% correct.

[ClamLeague9000]

Doesn't sound like Amazon is doing anything wrong.

[InaVegt]

Doesn't sound like Amazon is doing anything wrong.

Legally they're not doing anything wrong, nor should it be legally wrong.

It is, however, morally despiccable, discrimination of the worst sort, by effectively denying lgbt-people exist.

[Divine Comedy]

Unacceptable of course, but I totally expected it from Amazon. Their stock is through the roof, and when an organization grows too large and powerful it most often becomes ponderous and despicable.

[BRC]

Legally they're not doing anything wrong, nor should it be legally wrong.

It is, however, morally despiccable, discrimination of the worst sort, by effectively denying lgbt-people exist.
What Gez said. We have no right to force amazon to sell these books, but we have every right to disagree with the message this policy sends.

[ClamLeague9000]

Legally they're not doing anything wrong, nor should it be legally wrong.

It is, however, morally despiccable, discrimination of the worst sort, by effectively denying lgbt-people exist.

It's not like they have an obligation to suppport LGBT people.

[Recaiden]

Yes, they are allowed to do this, but I strongly disagree that they should. While they have the right to display things however they wish, it sends a discriminatory message to apply it so.:smallfurious:

[Divine Comedy]

It's not like they have an obligation to suppport LGBT people.

Well definitely not, that would be discrimination against non-LGBT. But really as it has been said no one is forcing them to stop doing this. It's all just legitimate criticism of a corporate policy some individuals disagree with.

Amazon expects this and the ball is in their court. If they don't expect this, then they shouldn't be a mega-corporation in the first place.

[InaVegt]

It's not like they have an obligation to suppport LGBT people.

This is not "not supporting", this is actively persecuting all lgbt-related materials and destroying their accessibility on Amazon.

I tend to expect being treated equal, as "all men were created equal", and similar statements. Amazon is saying "No, you are not equal, you're a bunch of perverts."

They still have no obligation, but neither do I have the obligation to buy materials at such despiccable organizations.

And I have the full right to complain, and to boycot such organizations.

[Phae Nymna]

Aux armes citoyens!
I am angry. I am ANGRY.

What can we do?

[InaVegt]

Aux armes citoyens!
I am angry. I am ANGRY.

What can we do?

Spread the word, send angry letters, boycott.

That's pretty much it.

[Divine Comedy]

Aux armes citoyens!
I am angry. I am ANGRY.

What can we do?

Reasonable discourse and criticism. Anything further such as hacking would justify the stance of amazon. Physical protests would likely be ignored.

[RTGoodman]

I saw this earlier today on Neil Gaiman's Twitter (http://twitter.com/neilhimself). One question I have is, has Amazon made any sort of public statement about the change, a press release, or anything?

[ClamLeague9000]

We should support Amazon.

[Roland St. Jude]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that this action is legal. The federal government and all fifty states prohibit false or deceptive advertising/commercial activity in some form. To the extent that Amazon publishes sales numbers and ranks as a means of convincing people that these are the bestselling, popular books and that information isn't accurate, it may well be an unfair commercial practice. Not only is it not accurate, it's very purposefully inaccurate in certain ways that seem intended to mislead and which are unlikely to be advertised to the public with those rankings. I bet it's at least worth an FTC or state attorney general investigation, and probably a civil suit. I'll make some calls.
One would assume that Amazon checked into that before taking action but many companies do less thorough legal vetting of their actions than you'd think, their actions often fall in gray areas anyway, and sometimes companies decide that even including possible legal sanctions the action is still a net gain.

[Divine Comedy]

We should support Amazon.

Uh, could you tell us why?

[RabbitHoleLost]

We should support Amazon.

Why do you think that?
You can't just drop something like that in the middle of a bunch of angry objectioners and not explain.

[Divine Comedy]

It's like we've developed some sort of rudimentary hive mind.

[Collin152]

Aux armes citoyens!
I am angry. I am ANGRY.

What can we do?

Formez nos batallions!
Marchons! Marchons!
Q'uan sang impur abreauve nos sillons!
[/obviously not fluent literate French]

Yes, yes, outrage and rage. This is perfectly legal, of course, but it shouldn't be!
I don't care for the rights of the organization overpowering the rights of the individual, like the right of the individual to be not-discriminated against.
Okay, so my word is hard to follow, but you catch the gist! When Collin obtains power, you can be sure he will ensure things like this don't happen.

[Stormthorn]

"And that night they were not divided."

Well...to be fair that is pretty damn sexy. It doesnt have ot be explicit to be sexualy charged. At least, not in my opinion. For instance, the following isnt explicit and might not make sense if you dont know the context but if you do know the context its clearly a sexual referance and, i think, a very strong statement.
"They moved together, blue diamonds on a green sea"
To me, thats more erotic than explaining all the details unless your really good at the details bit.

But, i dont like what Amazon is doing. I wont protest or send emails because it doesnt effect me, but i dont like it either way.

[RTGoodman]

So, looking around the blogosphere blagoblag, it seems it's not just random fiction - there's a HUGE list of books, from VERY famous novels like Brokeback Mountain (as mentioned about) and Lady Chatterly's Lover, and even several LBGT NON-FICTION books. See this blog post (http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/11992.html) for the list.

I also didn't see anything about this purge on the Amazon press release page (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-news), so I'm betting there's not much "official word" about it.

[mercurymaline]

We should support Amazon.

And vegetarians should eat steak.


It's not necessarily legal, if it's discrimination based misrepresentation of figures. The authors affected could sue.

@Roland: I don't see how they could see a net gain in this. Will people spend more money with them because of this practice?

[Recaiden]

Why do you think that?
You can't just drop something like that in the middle of a bunch of angry objectioners and not explain.

Well, they may have a right to do this, and you could argue that the right should be protected no matter how it is abused, or they may agree with Amazon'a actions.


Q'uan sang impur abreauve nos sillons!

Their impure blood will clog the windows?:smallconfused:

[BRC]

The fact that they are being so sneaky about it means they know what they are doing won't end well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly reversed this now that it's out on the Internet, before it makes it's way to the mainstream media.

[adanedhel9]

Hrm, the evidence seems spotty to me. Kiss of the Spider Woman has lost its rank, but Fun Home hasn't (and I'd put them on equal terms as far as explicit LGBT content). Ai No Kusabi (which I'm only aware of via the translator's blog; I know nothing of the content) retains its rank as well.

My best guess? Some 'media watchdog' group complained about specific works appearing in searches, and Amazon, being a big sensitive corporation, followed their advice. As most big sensitive corporations do, they'll react to the blog outrage and revert the changes - only to follow up with a subtler change at a later date when everyone's forgotten about this.

[rubakhin]

It's not like they have an obligation to suppport LGBT people.

They're a private company, so they're probably well within their rights here.

However, it's not that they're not supporting us, it's that they're actively suppressing works from my culture and saying that everything that's somehow related to us is dirty. I'm not saying they should have some sort of legal obligation to do otherwise, but still. I'm going to speak out against everyone who tries to silence my voice.

By the way, this just hit the Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/04/amazon-deranks-gayfriendly-books-the-twitterverse-notices.html), so yay for mainstream attention.

[Collin152]

Their impure blood will clog the windows?:smallconfused:

Indeed it will!

And now I think I will use this to pad out a speech against "my enemies".
Gah! Deja vu strikes! I can see all the paths I can take from here, all echoing in my mind! Don't think so fast, ask the right questions, calm down!
So, it'd be nice if people could bring other inflammatory actions on the part of notables to my attention; I need a really good speech if I want to pad out scholarship applications.

[Stormthorn]

can see all the paths I can take from here, all echoing in my mind! Don't think so fast, ask the right questions, calm down!

Stormthorn is pleased by your confusion. Stumble numbly through your own mind mortal. I shall laugh derisivly.

[Alteran]

Looks like Amazon is no longer my source for online books. It's a small protest, but I used to buy books from them pretty frequently. I hope they change this policy in the future, though it may be legal, it's certainly not something I can support.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

First off, has anyone else thought that this might occurence with the products at Amazon could be the threat of a lawsuit. I mean that's the first thing that came to mind. It only takes one over-protective parent that saw the book listing their kid (likely young) clicked on because it was on a best seller list, or a recommendation of something else they were looking for. Then they write or call Amazon, and say they don't think it's appropriate for their child to see that kind of material, and threaten to sue. So instead of making a huge public fuss over things, they're quietly removing that certain material, so others don't stumble upon it and the same thing happens again. I'm not saying it is indeed the case here, but there likely is a distinct possibility that it is. Also, it's not like they're completely removing those books and other materials from sale. You can still get them at Amazon, you just have to know what you're looking for. And with those books, I'm sure that most who get them, are specifically looking for them, and do not just happen to come across them in a list.

[mercurymaline]

Well, I didn't spend enough money with them to be important, I'm sure. But I did just contact every LGBT news organization I know of...

[turkishproverb]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that this action is legal. The federal government and all fifty states prohibit false or deceptive advertising/commercial activity in some form. To the extent that Amazon publishes sales numbers and ranks as a means of convincing people that these are the bestselling, popular books and that information isn't accurate, it may well be an unfair commercial practice. Not only is it not accurate, it's very purposefully inaccurate in certain ways that seem intended to mislead and which are unlikely to be advertised to the public with those rankings. I bet it's at least worth an FTC or state attorney general investigation, and probably a civil suit. I'll make some calls.
One would assume that Amazon checked into that before taking action but many companies do less thorough legal vetting of their actions than you'd think, their actions often fall in gray areas anyway, and sometimes companies decide that even including possible legal sanctions the action is still a net gain.

To say nothing of the fact the individual publishers and authors have an easy case for Fraud and libel as this effectively serves as a false advertisement that their books are not selling whatever amount they really are, as they do not hold that spot on the board. Glad to know your making the calls.
As to the legal, I've found companies do alot of stupid things.


First off, has anyone else thought that this might occurence with the products at Amazon could be the threat of a lawsuit. I mean that's the first thing that came to mind. It only takes one over-protective parent that saw the book listing their kid (likely young) clicked on because it was on a best seller list, or a recommendation of something else they were looking for. Then they write or call Amazon, and say they don't think it's appropriate for their child to see that kind of material, and threaten to sue. So instead of making a huge public fuss over things, they're quietly removing that certain material, so others don't stumble upon it and the same thing happens again. I'm not saying it is indeed the case here, but there likely is a distinct possibility that it is.

That makes no difference. If they did it with no provocation, it is bigoted. If they did it because parents complained, to all these books that only have lgbt in common, it is bigoted. If they did it because of threats of legal action, it is bigoted. This is a big company that knows it shouldn't have to defend itself from such lawsuits, and could do so easily, especially when we're talking about the link the kid would click leading to a relatively g rated "About Item" page.


Also, it's not like they're completely removing those books and other materials from sale. You can still get them at Amazon, you just have to know what you're looking for. And with those books, I'm sure that most who get them, are specifically looking for them, and do not just happen to come across them in a list.

Erm, no. No, they often aren't.

For one, High seller listings and such are of key importance to book sales, as they suggest books of interest to people shopping.

For another, the removal of these rankings hurts the ability of the authors and publishers to illustrate book sales and reception, and indeed makes it appear as though the books did not sell many if any copies on amazon.

For another, whenever first looking for books related to various materials, one does not start by looking up the titles of exact books, usually because they would not know them.

And the very notion that only people already looking for that EXACT BOOK are or would be interested in it is absurd, in this particular arena or any other..

[Gorgondantess]

Hm. Well, 1st of all, it should be entirely legal. Unless Amazon is government funded or the like, they shouldn't be able to intervene just because they changed a bit of things on their website. Besides, if the government intervened, 2 things would happen: 1, Amazon would just move over so that it's base of operations is outside of the government's jurisdiction. TONS of websites do that. 2: It would mean Laissez Faire is DEAD. Which brings me onto my next point.
I want to make it perfectly clear I don't entirely agree with what amazon is doing. However, I also believe that they totally have the rights to do that and that noone should intervene, because it is a private corporation built on someone's blood, sweat, brains and tears, and the owner(s) can do whatever they please with it. Noone has the right to tell them otherwise, or even say they're wrong for doing it. If you don't like it, stop shopping on amazon, or just send them an angry email. But noone has the right to boss them around, sue them, or anything like that- not you, not the authors of the books, or even the government.

[mercurymaline]

@Cube o' Doom: The parents in that situation would not have a case.

@Gorgondantess: No one is suggesting the government stop them. If enough people find out and are offended by this, they won't shop with Amazon, and the company with see a net loss. And therefore, reverse their decision, if they have any sense.

[turkishproverb]

Hm. Well, 1st of all, it should be entirely legal...

Read my above post, and Roland's quoted within it. What they are doing has shades of fraud to it, as well as the unfair and discriminatory commercial practices issue, something mostly illegal in the states.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Lets add some fuel to the fire, shall we?

I'm angry, indeed, and Amazon is very useful to me.

They're now boycotted.

A quick search, however, has revealed that explicity adult materials (IE, sex toys) still return quite extensive lists.

I'm sure a big company like Amazon can reach a reasonable compromise (Enable/disable safesearch, even), if they're so anti-LGBT.
Until I hear something, though.

I'm a very angry Thanatos.

[mercurymaline]

A quick search, however, has revealed that explicity adult materials (IE, sex toys) still return quite extensive lists.


Which further disproves the "Child Finding Naughty Things" theory.

[Helanna]

No wait, people! False alarm! It was all just a glitch! A horrible, homophobic, bigoted glitch! Clearly we all knew Amazon would never target the LGBT community then backpedal as soon as the sh*t hit the fan, so obviously they're telling the truth!! It's all cleared up now, no need to worry! Do I really even need to put [/sarcasm]?

Edit: Here, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_en_ot/books_amazon) closest thing I could find to a quote.


Noone has the right to tell them otherwise, or even say they're wrong for doing it.

Can you expand on this? I would say that everyone has the right to say that they're wrong for discriminating against the gay community. What exactly did you mean?

[BRC]

It looks like crime, it smells like crime, it sounds like crime, but unless this is an off-the-cuff decision by a small number of people, or their legal department sucks, I bet it's not technically criminal.

[mercurymaline]

No wait, people! False alarm! It was all just a glitch! A horrible, homophobic, bigoted glitch! Clearly we all knew Amazon would never target the LGBT community then backpedal as soon as the sh*t hit the fan, so obviously they're telling the truth!! It's all cleared up now, no need to worry! Do I really even need to put [/sarcasm]?


Wait, what? Has news developed? Please elaborate.

[Gorgondantess]

Can you expand on this? I would say that everyone has the right to say that they're wrong for discriminating against the gay community. What exactly did you mean?

Oh, yes. I think it's terrible that they're discriminating the gay community. But they're discriminating against the gay community within the confines of their own private company, which they should be able to do as they please with. Call them wrongheaded, misguided, bad people, but don't call them wrong. It's the principle, not the cause.


Read my above post, and Roland's quoted within it. What they are doing has shades of fraud to it, as well as the unfair and discriminatory commercial practices issue, something mostly illegal in the states.

Well.... I disagree. It's just censorship. Although there are some grey areas, I don't think it's any worse than, say, slapping a "for mature audiences only" label on something. While it's a more drastic version of this, it's the same thing, just to a different degree.


@Gorgondantess: No one is suggesting the government stop them. If enough people find out and are offended by this, they won't shop with Amazon, and the company with see a net loss. And therefore, reverse their decision, if they have any sense.
Well, if they're going to be sued for it, under the government- which some suggest- and if the government considers them fraudulent- which some suggest- then, In My Humble Opinion, the government would probably stop them. But, in the latter statement, I fully agree.

Also, I'd like to state that in my previous comment, I wasn't pointing any fingers- lord knows, you point fingers and someone gets poked. I was just giving my two cents, for whatever it's worth.

[Occasional Sage]

Looks like Amazon is no longer my source for online books. It's a small protest, but I used to buy books from them pretty frequently. I hope they change this policy in the future, though it may be legal, it's certainly not something I can support.

Powell's (http://www.powells.com/) is a good alternate source for books, although they don't carry music and the other things that Amazon brings to the table. They are, however: liberal, helpful, dedicated, local, and fabulous. In addition to being a finger in Amazon's eye.




Well.... I disagree. It's just censorship. Although there are some grey areas, I don't think it's any worse than, say, slapping a "for mature audiences only" label on something. While it's a more drastic version of this, it's the same thing, just to a different degree.


I see a world of difference between adding a "warning" label and falsifying information. One is free speech; the other is lying.

[ClamLeague9000]

The fact that they are being so sneaky about it means they know what they are doing won't end well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly reversed this now that it's out on the Internet, before it makes it's way to the mainstream media.

It's not like they were so secretive about it. They did it on the internet, as exposed to the watch of the world as you can get. Just because they didn't announce it on their frontpage doesn't make this some sort of secret scheme to take over the world.

[turkishproverb]

Well.... I disagree. It's just censorship. Although there are some grey areas, I don't think it's any worse than, say, slapping a "for mature audiences only" label on something. While it's a more drastic version of this, it's the same thing, just to a different degree.


Well, if they're going to be sued for it, under the government- which some suggest- and if the government considers them fraudulent- which some suggest- then, In My Humble Opinion, the government would probably stop them. But, in the latter statement, I fully agree.

It is not just censorship if they have a sales ranking that deliberately skips works because they are LGBT. At the very least anyone who reads their rankings has been defrauded by way of inaccurate information, mad so by way of specific intended manipulation of data (at the order of those on company payroll) to show facts contrary to reality.

To say nothing of the rest of the stuff I have already posted.

P.S. Thanks for the tip on Powells, Occasional Sage, I almost forgot about them.

[User Name]

{Scrubbed}

[Oracle_Hunter]

Edit: Here, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_en_ot/books_amazon) closest thing I could find to a quote.


:confused:

Now, I'm no computer expert but that explanation has many flavors of "implausible" in it. Assuming Mark R. Probst (http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html) is telling the truth, someone in Amazon either poorly implemented a new "child-proofing" system or they were doing a stealth-censorship that they (somehow) expected nobody would notice? Normally I'd be more likely to believe the former than the latter (never attribute to malice what can be due to stupidity) but who knows?

Anyhow, three cheers for citizen journalism! Any bets on whether the dead-tree press picks this up? :smalltongue:

[User Name]

Anyhow, three cheers for citizen journalism! Any bets on whether the dead-tree press picks this up? :smalltongue:

Probably never since it's not an issue for anyone who doesn't scan sales lists on Amazon for LGBT books.

[TheSummoner]

Amazon has the right to censor their services if they so choose.

It may not be fair, but many people consider homosexuality obscene, and if Amazon doesn't want to advertise products related to such controversial topics, that is their choice.

Not agreeing with them, since my opinions on these matters aren't exactly simple, but they have the right to censor as they wish.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Probably never since it's not an issue for anyone who doesn't scan sales lists on Amazon for LGBT books.

Well now, if a major bookseller is doing a secret de-listing of LGBT books, that's news! Was it really a "glitch?" If so, what kind?

Surely they should get some sort of blowback from this, no?

[ClamLeague9000]

{Scrubbed}

[Oracle_Hunter]

{Scrubbed}

To start with, I was merely speculating - it is possible that either a rogue employee or a fool was trying to implement a system and caught all of the LGBT titles (perhaps they have a special tag?) along with the Erotica and called it a day. As I said, it is usually more probable that someone did something stupid rather than looking for a conspiracy. But without proof, we don't know which it was.

That said - did I miss someone Godwinning earlier in this thread? I'm usually on the lookout for that sort of stuff :smalltongue:

[RabbitHoleLost]

{Scrubbed}

[afroakuma]

It may not be fair, but many people consider homosexuality obscene, and if Amazon doesn't want to advertise products related to such controversial topics, that is their choice.

Not agreeing with them, since my opinions on these matters aren't exactly simple, but they have the right to censor as they wish.

They do indeed have this right, but the authors of this material, the audience for this material, the publishers and suppliers of this material have the right to be told, in advance, that Amazon is going to continue doing business with them but change the terms under which they are doing it.

This was not the case. Amazon made a unilateral change that had a detrimental effect on all of the aforementioned stakeholders and did not see fit to give them notice. And that is most definitely not their choice or their right.

Edit: One poster on this thread seems to be inciting some negative feedback. I think the general sentiment towards abrasiveness on this thread has already been shown; there's no need to push it further.

[Alteran]

{Scrubbed}

Did you not read where it was stated that many more obscene (but non-LGBT related) items were not un-listed, including books with much more explicit sex scenes and sex toys? I'd want to see a source for the latter, as I wasn't aware Amazon dealt in that kind of item. However, the former is easy enough to confirm.

Some "child-proofing" system that is. Unless Amazon really considers even non-explicit homosexuality to be so obscene that it to be kept away from children when graphic sex scenes are okay, I don't think this is a reasonable explanation.

[User Name]

{Scrubbed}

I wouldn't put it in such crude terms, but this is pretty much what I was thinking. Like it or not, some people will get upset if Amazon suggests they pick up Brokeback Mountain along with their Little House on the Prairie DVDs/books. Amazon is a biznes, not a defender of civil rights or a promoter of gay culture.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I wouldn't put it in such crude terms, but this is pretty much what I was thinking. Like it or not, some people will get upset if Amazon suggests they pick up Brokeback Mountain along with their Little House on the Prairie DVDs/books. Amazon is a biznes, not a defender of civil rights or a promoter of gay culture.

Fair enough, but as a business, does it not have faith in its matching algorithm software? The whole point of the suggestion box is to encourage further sales by targeting likely buyers. If enough people who bought Little House on the Prairie also bought Brokeback Mountain, shouldn't they offer that movie up like they would True Grit?

If it is a question of sensibilities, Amazon could easily let customers filter out items they do not care for - Erotica, LGBT, {Scrubbed}, what have you. Easy enough and it more accurately reflects the desires of the customer; a win-win situation. But it does not make business sense to cripple your own business model for non-commercial reasons.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread has become needlessly hostile and (probably unavoidably) political. Thread locked.