Amazon Culls "Offensive" Books From Search System 470
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?"
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.
The new reality (Score:0, Insightful)
There was a time when we'd trust our collective knowledge to impartial institutions like libraries.
The gestalt of society is now firmly in the hands of corporate interest. Books from Amazon(tm). Friends from Facebook(tm). Meeting for Starbucks(tm). One brand identity after another. As soon as the books offend the brand identity they are stricken from the record.
One day the world will be Disneyland. Forced rictus smile sterility.
And we let it happen.
It's Amazon's business (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazon has no obligation to advertise (or even sell) books that the company considers detrimental to their business. It may be that they will eventually limit themselves to politically correct generic choices that offend no one - but again it's up to them to decide.
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.
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.
Re:It's Amazon's business (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hate this mindset, which is rather common here: "Why are you complaining? They're perfectly within their rights to do that!" The rebuttal is trivial: We're perfectly within our rights to rebuke them/boycott them/etc if we don't like their actions. If we're lucky they'll be shamed into acting better and/or decide that what they did was detrimental to their business...
David Gay
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: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.
can anyone coroberate this from a seperate source (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's Amazon's business (Score:2, Insightful)
I just hope we are not on the road to [F-451].
Yes, we are, but not because of book stores. We are because people watch TV more and more, and read books less and less. We will reach the F-451 point when we will still have tons of books in small, dark book stores, and nobody will want to read them, just as today hardly anyone is rushing to read Sumerian clay tablets.
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.
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.
Re:The new reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, sure. It shouldn't be immune to criticism, but to call it censorship is a lie.
They didn't delete anything. They catered to their primary audience by moving things they may find offensive to another area.
On the other hand, the author who is calling for boycotts is a charlatan for attempting to trick hot-headed, small-minded "do-gooders" into retaliating against Amazon by convincing them that this mythical "censorship" happened.
So yeah, it's legal. Not a good reason to tell people to drop it. But it's also moronic to bitch about this, and that's a really good reason to tell people to drop it. But feel free. Be a sheep. Boycott Amazon because the tags in the story summary told you this was censorship, even though it isn't. 'cause censorship is bad, right?
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why the blogger is calling for a boycott, rather than a lawsuit.
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.
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, 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. Does this seem rational to you?
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. It's not evil, it's not censorship, and it's DEFINITELY not outrageous or unusual.
After reading the first link (Score:2, Insightful)
That tells me this is a bunch of bullshit and no need to read any further.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
One could say that their best sellers list is a publication. It's not a publication in the traditional sense since it appears online. But other best seller lists have appeared in magazines and the like as well. As they are deleting items from the list, one could indeed view this as a form of censorship.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
Safe search is a misnomer. It really should be called "reasurring search" since it's not designed to be safe (that might involve sexual content if studies showed it didn't cause harm) but rather to reassure parents. There is no 'slippery slope' because there is nowhere to fall. Safe search means showing whatever results the mainstream view thinks of as acceptable.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like those useless "Click only if are above 18" button.
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.
Shop LOCAL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't like Amazon? Go to your local bookstores! Oh wait, there aren't any any more! That's right. Everybody and their mother wanted to save an extra quarter so the local bookstores are all gone. Bummer, huh? Too bad people are really, really stupid en masse.
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:1, Insightful)
Whats wrong with naked people all of a sudden? I don't mind them and the people who do are only upset because someone taught them to be upset. A bit like teaching children that people with different colored skins are to be hated really. Thats what pisses me off about religion and censorship, they only want the censorship because its in a list of mindless rules that make sure that they have to kill other people in other religions because they are different in each religion. Religion is a sickness, a self propagating information set which is designed to kill everybody with a different self propagating meme. And if you insist that athesisim is also a religion then fair enough, it means that I have to kill all these people with a religion - not because I have a meme that tells me that I have to kill them but because they want to kill me. If Amazon is censoring books because of some religious lobby group then I don't buy from Amazon any more.
Award-winning filtering? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was surfing through Amazon to confirm the story, and sure enough, all the copies of Brokeback Mountain and Lady Chatterley's lover...
Woah, hold up a sec. Brokeback Mountain? The movie that has 60+ nominations and 3 Oscars to its name? THAT Brokeback Mountain?
Good luck on your distribution contracts with Hollywood in the future there Amazon. Er, you might want to put that (bridge) fire out before you get fined.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Their audience wants family-friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
Family friendly means you don't want someone else's values rammed down your throat.
Mein Kampf? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That's OK then?
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.
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:2, Insightful)
off topic: Why would I cover my young kid's eyes when a naked stranger walks by? I don't think its anything they haven't seen before. I would probably point out to them that most people don't walk around naked because its not polite. I would also point out that its also not polite to make fun of people walking around naked. I don't care if my kids see someone's genitals. I *do* care of someone inappropriately tries to introduce those genitals to my kids. No, I'm not a nudist.
On topic: I agree that if a company like Amazon treats a class of books differently than others (especially if it makes them harder to find/evaluate than others) then it amounts to censorship. I disagree with censorship directed towards adults.
I agree with those who would limit what their children are exposed to when it contradicts their own beliefs until they believe that their children are ready to question it. I also encourage parents to talk to their children about a wide range of issues, including age-appropriate discussions on sex and violence, with the aim of preparing them to interpret what they will see in the world.
Ultimately my kids will decide what they think is right and wrong, but it is my duty to prove them with a basic moral backdrop. Young kids aren't any more ready to ascertain the truth/untruth about bible stories any more than they are ready to decide whether to cut the red wire or the green wire when defusing a bomb.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Skews WHAT search results? Sales rankings? I search for Nabokov's "Lolita" and it shows up just fine. They're not hiding it. They're not preventing me from buying it. What makes you think you have a RIGHT to see their sales rankings information anyway? Get off your overinflated high-horse of entitlement and just take your business somewhere else if it bothers you. But don't try to pretend your rights have been trampled just because someone else's business changes what and how much information they choose to share with you.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just that Amazon decided to cordon off adult material into a different section
Except that it's not adult material they decided to censor. It's any book that's pro-gay rights. That's why books like The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students and Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History were removed while "real" adult stuff like Playboy titles went unscathed.
Unless you're one of those nuts that's paranoid about the "Homosexual Agenda".
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:1, Insightful)
No in order to be philosophically consistent you would have to regard teaching your child any belief system (including your own) was child abuse, and then defend that right.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes people, it's censorship. You've just been conditioned to think that's a naughty word.
I think we can agree that censorship of your political speech is bad.
I think we can also agree that censoring your language around children isn't necessarily bad.
Now if a company decides they don't want their adult products to show up in search results, is that bad?
Anyway... that's the discussion at hand. Should people boycott Amazon because they hid their adult materials? Did they do a bad job of selecting what materials are deemed 'adult'? Those things we can discuss. The argument about whether or not it's censorship is silly.
Re:Atheists would fight for your religious books (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your underlying issue is manipulative people, not religion."
Which then by definition is religious people teaching their religion to young children.
Look at the stats on religion change sometime-you'll notice that the religion you are taught tends to be the one you practice as an adult. Good or bad, what you teach children matters.