Slashdot Log In
Amazon Culls "Offensive" Books From Search System
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Apr 12, 2009 06:53 PM
from the streisand-effect dept.
from the streisand-effect dept.
Miracle Jones writes "Amazon has instituted an overnight policy that removes books that may be deemed offensive from their search system, despite the sales rank of the book and also irrespective of any complaints. Bloggers such as Ed Champion are calling for a 'link and book boycott,' asking people to remove links to Amazon from their web pages and stop buying books from them until the policy is reversed. Will this be bad business for Amazon, or will their new policies keep them out of trouble as they continue to grow and replace bookstores?"
Related Stories
[+]
Was the Amazon De-Listing Situation a Glitch Or a Hack? 396 comments
Miracle Jones writes "As Amazon struggles to re-list and re-rank gay, lesbian, and adult books on their website after massive public outcry against the secretive partitioning process, they are claiming that the entire situation was not the result of an intentional policy at all, are not apologizing, and are instead insisting that the situation was the result of 'a glitch' that they are now trying to fix. While some hackers are claiming credit for 'amazonfail,' and it is indeed possible that an outside party is responsible, most claims have already been debunked. How likely is it that Amazon was hacked versus the likelihood of an internal Easter weekend glitch? Or is the most obvious and likely scenario true, and Amazon simply got caught implementing a wildly-unpopular new policy without telling anyone?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a corporate website that can do anything within the law. FTA;
Evidently, Amazon's starting to stick their "adult" shit in a virtual back room behind a virtual curtain, and his book got fingered in the first wave.
But the books are still available even. It's just that Amazon decided to cordon off adult material into a different section, like many brick and mortar stores. This article should have never been on Slashdot in the first place.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Amazon is a business that can do whatever it likes with its website. That doesn't mean that anything it does is immune to criticism, or must be agreed with.
What is it with the "well, $ACTION is legal, so shut up." line of thinking? Sure, if somebody proposes that the Ministry of Fairness, Niceness, and Free Ponies at Taxpayer Expense be called in to save the day, than it is an appropriate response. So long as it is people drawing attention to the issue, and suggesting that others make their displeasure known, it is nothing more than a non-sequitor with a veneer of plausibility.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevertheless, it isn't censorship on Amazon's part. Amazon is not a government or other authority or monopoly so we are still free to shop elsewhere and many will.
It is still censorship, just of their search results. I don't know why it is people think only the gub can censor things.
Parent
I do not think that word means what you think... (Score:5, Informative)
Theres a shocker, someone does something you don't agree with so you scream 'censorship by the evil company'.
Ever wonder why normal people don't care about this shit and look at you like your stupid when you whine about it?
Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its censorship.
From dictionary.com:
censorship [sen-ser-ship] ...
noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
censor [sen-ser] ...
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
(some text censored as irrelevant to the current discussion)
--
Next time, open your mind before you open your mouth.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
If they chose, as a business, simply not to sell it, would that be censorship? If so, every bookstore that doesn't carry everything ever written is engaging in censorship.
Sort of, but there are other issues, such as striving to meet demand without overburdening the warehouse.
Sorry, but here in the real world, we have to take into consideration that sometimes not everything is appropriate for everyone to see, and being responsible people we make sure that there are proper safeguards to make sure everything works out properly.
Sorry, who is supposed to take this into consideration? The largest bookstore on the planet skews search results towards an approved reading list--and most people will never know--and you're not even a little worried? Amazon doesn't need the aforementioned warehouse (the fact that they have one for their more popular stuff is moot). But when a corporation hides material that some random group has deemed "offensive", I do not find it obvious that everything is OK. We progress by reading and evaluating the opinions of others, not by sticking our heads in the sand. This seems to be Amazon's tacit endorsement of the head-in-sand approach to acquiring knowledge. Not exactly censorship in the strictest sense, but not obviously "not outrageous" either. If there is material that is not appropriate for me to see, do you really think that Amazon is well-equipped to make that decision for me?
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Funny)
But it's _sex_ for gosh sakes. Censoring sex is as American as apple pie and unprovoked wars of aggression.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Interesting)
If they removed said books and refused to sell them then it would be worse.
And I would be as annoyed if any books were removed even religious ones but should a safe search include some of the more extreme religious books with more extreme views? It's a slippery slope.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like those useless "Click only if are above 18" button.
Parent
Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an atheist who used my mod points. Yes, I would be outraged if they did the same to religious books. I may not believe what you believe, but I will never side with those who would silence your faith.
Some time ago, some friends invited us to a baptism at their church. We went in order to be polite. They had a place for the toddlers and little kids to go and play, and hear bible stories. Which didn't bother me, until I realized that in this context these weren't stories - they were true lessons. The children would likely be asked to repeat back and affirm what they had learned about Jesus or God or what have you. I don't know that I have ever felt so protective towards my son. I had to get him out of there *right now*. I don't think about religion much, so I had never realized how passionately I feel. And in that moment I understood how many religious people must feel. I may not respect their religion, but I do respect people as human beings with a fundamental right to believe what they want - and yes, to teach it to their kids.
So don't run around making stereotypes of those who don't believe what you do. I have seen religious Americans on TV about the depravity of atheists, about how perhaps they should not even be recognized as full citizens. Then I have seen atheists turn around and say exactly the same thing about believers. Don't stand for that stupid, stupid ignorance and hate. We are still friends with that family. That is one of the greatest things about our society.
By the way, I think your opt-in/opt-out solution (yes, YouTube does that, as does Google) is perfect.
Parent
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:5, Insightful)
An atheist wouldn't be afraid of God, which is quite a different thing to fear than religion. There are many legitimate reasons to fear religion, not the least of which is the way in which it warps the minds of the young.
Parent
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Making my son an independent human being (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I thought very hard about why I had such a strong reaction. The main reason? I am very close to my son. His faith would create a barrier between us. I have very strong moral convictions. I want to pass my values on to him, and I look forward to discussing such things with him when he's older. Doctrinaire religion would cut communication off at the knees.
Of course he is his own person. When he is capable of making his own decisions, he will be free to believe what he wants to believe and listen to what he wants to listen to. My long-term job as a parent is not to tell him what to believe (or, at this age, to let others do that either) but to enable him to make those choices. (I very much doubt you are a parent, or you wouldn't make ridiculous suggestions about "censorship" of a 3 year-old.)
One of the other problems in this situation is that if he was taught to believe the bible story, I would feel obliged to respond. But I don't want to intervene against religion either. He doesn't need to know at all at this age. Besides, beliefs are secondary. It is values I wish to teach, not religion (pro or anti). How would it make our friends or their son feel if my boy told theirs that there is no God?
Parent
Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most people here would be much more upset.
Sure, I think sex themes and porn aren't a big deal and many people would be happier if they weren't so prudish about it (my wife and I certainly appreciate porn). I'm also in the religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense group but unlike adult content few people would even suspect that religious content was being cordoned off so it would be a greater barrier to the free access to ideas.
Of course ultimately I think this is really about customer service and transparency more than censorship. It's not evil or wrong for Bezos to choose not to sell whatever he finds objectionable but I feel there is a certain implicit trust that most of us place in amazon that it's not secretly sculpting what books it lets you see and keeping the "bad" ones hidden. If I think amazon isn't keeping that trust I'll find a bookstore to use that does. If amazon made sure to publisize what sort of books it would be hiding then it's not as big of a deal.
Of course I expect this will turn out to be nothing big.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not censorship but people use that word since it's the closest concept that we can readily name.
If CNN decided to only run stories about corruption allegatons against democrats that also wouldn't be censorship but yet in such a case we clearly should boycott CNN for abandoning journalistic integrity. There is an implicit expectation the news organizations stay objective and clearly delineate editorial material and we patronize a news outlet partially because we think they maintain this trust. When a news organization fails to do that we rightly feel ill served, even deceived and reasonably choose to and encourage others to patronize other news outlets.
The situation with bookstores, particularly online, is much the same. While there isn't a code of bookstore ethics analogous to journalistic ethics we have a similar expectation of being told when information is being deliberately hidden from us. So similarly if one cares about this kind of transparency it's reasonable to encourage people to only use stores that live up to this.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why the blogger is calling for a boycott, rather than a lawsuit.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon can certainly choose to do this. No one is arguing that this is not within their rights.
On the other hand, it's my right to choose not to purchase from them because they do it, and to buy from booksellers who do not censor based on content. And that's a choice I intend to make. From the comments I've seen thus far on the issue, here and elsewhere, I also don't believe I'm the only one. When I want a book on a subject, I want to see every book available and decide for myself what I wish to read. I'm quite capable of deciding that for myself, and don't need or want Amazon or anyone's "help" in keeping "offensive" material hidden.
Just because what a company is doing is legal doesn't mean it's the right choice, or that their customers will tolerate it. Amazon would also be perfectly well within the law to triple all their prices, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't lose business from it.
And it's certainly legal for anyone who wishes to bring attention to the practice.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
Evidently, Amazon's starting to stick their "adult" shit in a virtual back room behind a virtual curtain, and his book got fingered in the first wave.
But the books are still available even. It's just that Amazon decided to cordon off adult material into a different section, like many brick and mortar stores. This article should have never been on Slashdot in the first place.
No, you are missing the point (not difficult from the somewhat hysterical FA and inaccurate summary).
Amazon have not stripped sales rankings from adult books, they have stripped ranking from gay and lesbian books.
So 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' which has been mistakenly added to the 'Gay and Lesbian' section has no ranking, but 'Naked Lunch' is not is in the 'Gay and Lesbian' section (despite its content being both 'adult' and in many places 'gay'), so gets a ranking.
'Heather has two Mommies' is a children's book, and has no ranking. Whether or not you agree that this book is offensive, you must agree that it is not an 'adult' book.
Parent
Already removed my links. (Score:4, Interesting)
This gives me yet another reason to steer people away from their programs.
Re:Already removed my links. (Score:4, Insightful)
I removed all Amazon affiliate links from my sites some time ago for unrelated reasons: extremely low CTR (even on highly relevant articles), "funny" reporting on their stats system that didn't jive with my internally monitored figures, and crappy support.
Those reasons might inflame nerds and business people, but even semi-censoring sex is something guaranteed to inflame vast swaths of society.
As always, the best way to effect change is through directed complaints to the company and more importantly, to Amazon's advertisers and partners.
Parent
Re:Already removed my links. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Already removed my links. (Score:5, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP, please!
I work every day with self-publishing authors, and Amazon's recent policies have completely blown away the concept that you could spend your money, get your books, sell your books, and make your millions. Now your MANUFACTURING PROCESS, not only your book itself, has to be approved by (and provided by) Amazon to be considered valid. Now you have to use Amazon's self-publishing arm (BookSurge) if you want your self-published book to be listed on Amazon. That's wrong on the surface, but when you dig deeper you find that they provide crappy product at prohibitive pricing, too.
Amazon can do what it wants, I suppose, but it's screwing a lot of earnest authors who are trying to make a name for themselves and haven't, for whatever reason, been able to sell their book to a royalty publisher. As I understand it, the "Chicken Soup For the Soul" series started as a self-published book -- say what you will about it, but it certainly spoke to a lot of people. That series would have never gotten off the ground under the current situation -- Amazon has taken control of the online bookselling world, and you are required to use their crappy services to produce your book if you want to sell it there. I'm sure this doesn't legally constitute a monopoly, but it's sure bad behavior given what Amazon used to say it was.
Personally, I think Amazon has lost sight of what it started out to be -- a community of book lovers. (I'm not just making this up -- I was at a Jeff Bezos keynote where he said this very thing.) Again, they can do what they please, but I was done spending money there when they began to discriminate against non-Amazon self-publishing authors.
Parent
Re:Already removed my links. (Score:5, Insightful)
What it started out to be is irrelevant. Important is what it is now: A publicly-traded company. Thus, any love for books or decency takes the back seat to the one rule, which would supersede even God himself: Increase shareholder value for the next quarter. It doesn't matter if you ruin entire industries doing it, shareholder value absolutely, positively has to increase.
Parent
Didn't block for me? (Score:4, Interesting)
I used a fresh browser session so I waasn't logged in and I searched for Brokeback Mountain and the Filly and found them both.
Did they change policy?
RTFA - Erotica removed from RANKINGS (Score:5, Insightful)
Erotica books were removed from page rankings. This particularly impacts gay-themed books since they're labeled more often as erotica, even when they have real plots. "Brokeback Mountain" get's no ranking while "Clan of the Cave Bear," with its throbbing members entering vaginas, gets a ranking. Meanwhile "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" sits happily with a ranking. Amazon is censoring sex, the fucking pansies, while considering hate-speech OK for the wider audience.
Parent
Consistency (Score:4, Interesting)
If some search results requires i.e. over certain age to see them, so be it, but not for every user.
Prejudicially including GLBT material as adult (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a private company and are free to classify items how they wish. Similarly, I can choose where to spend my money. I'll spend my money with a company that celebrates diversity. Not one that is so blatantly prejudicial.
Citations:
http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/11992.html (contains growing list of books) [livejournal.com]
http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html (screen caps and more info) [livejournal.com]
Powells.com (Score:5, Insightful)
They are everything Amazon is not, privately owned, good to their employees, socially responsible even when it doesn't show up in the press. They even have some brick and mortar locations (Portland OR, and Chicago). And the toll free phone number to contact then is on the front of the web page instead of being something you can only find in a 3rd party blog around Christmas time.
Are they perfect? No. Are they small enough to care what even one or two percent of their customers think? YES. When corporations get too big they get arrogant, it is in your interests to not let companies you like feel as if they can ignore you. Punish bad behavior with vocal and public criticism.
And to all those who say they are just creating an adult section, ask your self why children's books that try to discuss homosexuality delicately are delisted, but racy explicit romances is not.
Re:Powells.com (Score:4, Insightful)
ask your self why children's books that try to discuss homosexuality delicately are delisted, but racy explicit romances is not.
My guess is that nobody will mistake a racy explicit romance for a children book, buy it and give it to a child.
Any reason why you didn't quote the entire relevant section you were responding to, other than trying to be deliberately dishonest? Allow me:
And to all those who say they are just creating an adult section, ask your self why children's books that try to discuss homosexuality delicately are delisted, but racy explicit romances is not.
(emphasis mine)
Are children's books supposed to be in the adult section now?
Parent
Shades of Abunga? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same shit, different company (Score:5, Insightful)
When Facebook started to delete pictures of breastfeeding moms as "offensive" there was the same outcry - and a few months later no one really cares anymore.
I bet Amazon is playing the same card. They know very well that people will complain but they also know that people forget faster than a fly.
Seems to be USA only (Score:4, Informative)
Sales De-Lising Includes Political Books (Score:4, Interesting)
It Gets Even Better... (Score:5, Informative)
Do a search on 'homosexuality' on the main page of Amazon now. If that's a genuine search result, Amazon has issues above and beyond just delisting books.
Re:It Gets Even Better... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do a search on 'homosexuality' on the main page of Amazon now. If that's a genuine search result, Amazon has issues above and beyond just delisting books.
"A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality " as the #1 result? Now that's what I'd call a really offensive book.
Parent
Re:It Gets Even Better... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It Gets Even Better... (Score:5, Funny)
Try 'gay' and you'll hit the jackpot.
Somehow I doubt that's quite how I'd describe it.
Parent
Re:Surprise. (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently leather-fetish nazi self-help materials.
Parent
Policy Reversed Already? (Score:4, Informative)
I was surfing through Amazon to confirm the story, and sure enough, all the copies of Brokeback Mountain and Lady Chatterley's lover I pulled up had no sales rank figures.
So I called my girlfriend over to see, and when I searched up the same items, I now saw sales ranks on all of them. In fact, digging through now I can't find any items of this sort without sales rank. Including Probst's The Filly [amazon.com], the very item cited in TFA.
Did Amazon reverse this policy in just the last ten minutes?
Parent
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
actually from TFA that was the stuff amazon LEFT.
Parent
Re:Surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
What do you really expect from Amazon.
A patent application for one-click book-burning?
Parent
Re:You should have logged in. (Score:4, Funny)
There has got to be some kind of humor found in a guy saying that who goes by Alf's Boner...
Parent
Re:It's Amazon's business (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon has no obligation to advertise (or even sell) books that the company considers detrimental to their business.
You're absolutely right. That said, their affiliates have no obligation to continue promoting their products if they disagree with Amazon's practices. I won't sell their stuff.
Parent
Re:It's Amazon's business (Score:5, Insightful)
This will only create more business opportunities for other people to sell what Amazon doesn't. The barrier of entry into book selling online is very low. Everyone who whines and screams right now should be registering domains and dusting their LAMPs off.
Damn straight. This is America. We don't have an oppressive government, right? When one major corporate vendor drops you, you just pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and start a new store yourself. "Find a need and fill it," as Henry Ford and Ron Jeremy would no doubt agree.
So I'll just crank up my Linux/Apache skills and launch a storefront for erotica and other adult content, just like you're saying. Never mind Amazon Payments, I'll accept PayPal instead, and... wait, what [zdnet.co.uk]?
You mean that any sufficiently-entrenched oligopoly is indistinguishable from an oppressive government?
Who would'a thunk it?
Parent
Re:It's Amazon's business (Score:5, Insightful)
as I suggested why don't you just create an online book store that competes with Amazon
If it's such a awesomely profitable idea, why don't you do it yourself? Maybe you're already a busy person with a comfortable income? Maybe you're not interested in becoming a bookseller? And not to be overlooked: What happens if/when Amazon changes its mind two months later because a bunch of people disregarded your advice by boycotting, making noise, and shaming Amazon into reconsideration? Likely your little storefront and whatever time, energy and money you devoted to it would be instantly crushed.
Overall, this philosophy you're trying to convince everyone of, that the best response to an enterprise you disagree with is to directly compete with it, is, bluntly put, silly. If you don't like your Senator because she's too religious, you can't just vote against her, you have to run against her? If you don't like the latest blockbuster film because it's got bad science, you can't just be a critic, or warn your friends off, you have to produce and distribute your own film? If you don't like the music that's out there, boycotting the major labels is no good, you have to start your own band? Sure, some people will have the time, the ambition and the talent to make these kinds of responses worthwhile, and perhaps the world would be better if more of us had the courage to do so (although perhaps not...,) but for the vast majority of people it's simply unworkable for one reason or another.
Parent
Re:can anyone coroberate this from a seperate sour (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:can anyone coroberate this from a seperate sour (Score:5, Informative)
How about going to Amazon [amazon.com] (they have a website) and looking for yourself? Andrew Sullivan's book, Virtually Normal [amazon.com], which is NOT erotica or adult themed has no ranking.
Same for Same-sex Marriage: A Pro and Con Reader [amazon.com]. Which is, as the title suggests, a book concerning the arguments for and against gay marriage.
Same for Love Undetectable [amazon.com].
But his book The Conservative Soul: Fundamentalism, Freedom, and the Future of the Righ [amazon.com] has a ranking, so the delisting is not targeting specific authors, but almost any title that isn't openly hostile to gays has been delisted.
Consider:
101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
Homosexuality and Civilization [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They're Gay [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
Some more well-known books:
Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military [amazon.com]. No sales rank. This is one of the definitive histories of gays and lesbians in the US military.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
Major Conflict: One Gay Man's Life in the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell Military [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
Dont: A Readers Guide to the Militarys Anti-Gay Policy [amazon.com]. No sales rank.
NONE of these have adult themes.
But it's not universal... for example:
A book such as A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality [amazon.com]. Has a sales rank.
Can Homosexuality be Healed? [amazon.com]. Has a sales rank.
You Don't Have to be Gay [amazon.com]. Has a sales rank.
Now, perhaps there is a perfectly rational explanation, but looking at the evidence, I smell something funny.
Parent
Re:Forget the gay nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they do. It's called the free market. It goes like this:
1) Amazon decides to categorize what they sell in a manner that a certain group of people finds objectionable.
2) The offended group responds by withholding their business from Amazon.
3) If the losses Amazon suffers from this are above a certain threshold, they will reverse the policy; if not, they won't.
Every interest group in America uses this approach all the time. It was probably an interest group that caused the policy decision at Amazon in the first place. It's Amazon's fiduciary responsibility to maximize its income, so it will appease whichever group spends more money.
Parent