NationStates Jolt Archive

So apparently Amazon.com has started delisting books with adult content. Amazing how many of those happen to contain Gay/Lesbian/Transgender characters. So when the media finally tracks down the culprit who do you think it will be and what reasons will they give. If you want to say if it is right or wrong feel free, but I assume that is a given.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10217715-93.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

There goes Heinlein.:tongue:

Why isnt "The Homophobic Religous Consumers who sent untold amounts of emails" an option?

The CEO, because he's a homophobic bastard?

Many American companies, as well as American politicians in general, are still under this weird idea that the Religious Right is the silent majority and they must be catered to in all things.

However, given that most American companies, like most American politicians, are in the business of making money, they are gradually figuring out religious wackos make up only about 25% of the population, and that one should only cater to that wacko minority insofar as it does not cost one the business of the remaining 75%.

wait... there's no outcry when they don't have 'Naughty Night Nurses' and other such books on their list but when the character is homosexual it's suddenly 'censorship' and bad to not have those books?

how 'graphic' are these books? are they your typical 'romance' type or does it plunge into the 'adult' classification?

wait... there's no outcry when they don't have 'Naughty Night Nurses' and other such books on their list but when the character is homosexual it's suddenly 'censorship' and bad to not have those books?

how 'graphic' are these books? are they your typical 'romance' type or does it plunge into the 'adult' classification?

I personally wonder if the reason they were removed is because they are really 'adult' (which amazon has a right to choose not to sell certian explicit material) and if the fact that they are gay/lesbian is just a coincidence.

Why isnt "The Homophobic Religous Consumers who sent untold amounts of emails" an option?
Or the "books languishing in the warehouse that they couldn't move because they market's not THAT large" option?
It's all about money. If they can't sell it, it's got to go. Warehouse space that's clogged with things they can't move costs them money.

Or the "books languishing in the warehouse that they couldn't move because they market's not THAT large" option?

Eh, a lot of the selling on Amazon is done through third party sellers now, so that wouldnt really be an issue.

Even if these books were in a warehouse, it wouldnt be smart to remove them from your website. Youd want to sell them all (or at least as much as you can) and then just not order more/relist them.

So I dont think that can be to blame.

wait... there's no outcry when they don't have 'Naughty Night Nurses' and other such books on their list but when the character is homosexual it's suddenly 'censorship' and bad to not have those books?

Actually, the opposite is true.

Currently classified as "Adult" material: Heather has Two Mommies, a children's book written for grade school-age kids.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Playboy: the Complete Centerfolds, a book which contains 600 pages of overtly and intentionally sexualized pictures of naked women.


Currently classified as "Adult" material: Ellen DeGeneres' biography.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Ron Jeremy: The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz.


how 'graphic' are these books? are they your typical 'romance' type or does it plunge into the 'adult' classification?
A great many of the books being classifed as "adult" are children's books. Biographies, non-fiction books, and a variety of other books are being deranked. It's not porn and romance stuff, here.

Actually, the opposite is true.

Currently classified as "Adult" material: Heather has Two Mommies, a children's book written for grade school-age kids.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Playboy: the Complete Centerfolds, a book which contains 600 pages of overtly and intentionally sexualized pictures of naked women.


Currently classified as "Adult" material: Ellen DeGeneres' biography.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Ron Jeremy: The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz.


A great many of the books being classifed as "adult" are children's books. Biographies, non-fiction books, and a variety of other books are being deranked. It's not porn and romance stuff, here.

This sheds new light on it. It appears the issue isnt "graphic content" but just the fact that its about "teh gayz".

Eh, a lot of the selling on Amazon is done through third party sellers now, so that wouldnt really be an issue.

Even if these books were in a warehouse, it wouldnt be smart to remove them from your website. Youd want to sell them all (or at least as much as you can) and then just not order more/relist them.

So I dont think that can be to blame.
Except that as long as they're collecting dust on their pallet, you can't put something that will sell in that same spot.

But yes, if they're cutting even the third party sales, that's probably not the primary reason for delisting them.

However... there are other booksellers once can go to... so...

;) Why do you hate freedom? the free market is working the way it should! ;) (not aimed at you Trve, aimed at the whole forum.)

Except that as long as they're collecting dust on their pallet, you can't put something that will sell in that same spot.

But yes, if they're cutting even the third party sales, that's probably not the primary reason for delisting them.

However... there are other booksellers once can go to... so...

;) Why do you hate freedom? the free market is working the way it should! ;)

:p:p

Conservatives hardly know how to read anyway and certainly don't buy books, so I don't see how this is an issue for Amazon.

Conservatives hardly know how to read anyway and certainly don't buy books, so I don't see how this is an issue for Amazon.

.........

Actually, the opposite is true.

Currently classified as "Adult" material: Heather has Two Mommies, a children's book written for grade school-age kids.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Playboy: the Complete Centerfolds, a book which contains 600 pages of overtly and intentionally sexualized pictures of naked women.


Currently classified as "Adult" material: Ellen DeGeneres' biography.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Ron Jeremy: The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz.


A great many of the books being classifed as "adult" are children's books. Biographies, non-fiction books, and a variety of other books are being deranked. It's not porn and romance stuff, here.

Bottle, you have just deprived me of my speech.

Conservatives hardly know how to read anyway and certainly don't buy books, so I don't see how this is an issue for Amazon.

Flaming?

Bottle, you have just deprived me of my speech.

Bottle hates your freedom?


No, I know what you meant. Its just funny the way you put it.

Bottle hates your freedom?


No, I know what you meant. Its just funny the way you put it.

She just killed my speech. After posting that, it seems almost pointless to debate. All I can say is: "Amazon, WTF?"

This sheds new light on it. It appears the issue isnt "graphic content" but just the fact that its about "teh gayz".

Amazon's current party line (which you will get in a form letter if you email them about this) is that it's a "glitch."

A "glitch" that somehow marked Heather Has Two Mommies as "adult content" while skipping over Playboy's Centerfolds.

Amazon's current party line (which you will get in a form letter if you email them about this) is that it's a "glitch."

A "glitch" that somehow marked Heather Has Two Mommies as "adult content" while skipping over Playboy's Centerfolds.

Yeah, its certianly not a glitch. What is more likely is that some dipshit middle management type was offended by homosexual content.

If they fix it, thats what I'll assume.

Flaming?

Trolling.

Amazon's current party line (which you will get in a form letter if you email them about this) is that it's a "glitch."

A "glitch" that somehow marked Heather Has Two Mommies as "adult content" while skipping over Playboy's Centerfolds.

So, of course, everyone should email them. You can bet this 'response' data is being processed somewhere, with an eye to future policy.

I'm actually curious as to the real reason for this boneheaded move by Amazon. I mean, clearly it was intentionally done by SOMEBODY, but who?

I'm not trying to repeat the flame from earlier in the thread, but in all seriousness...who do we think buys more books: right-wing homophobes, or elitist liberal hippies?

Hell, who do we think has more disposable income to spend on books in the first place: homophobic evangelicals who believe that the purpose of sex is to make tons of babies, or liberal gays?

Just from a business standpoint it seems wonky.

I'm actually curious as to the real reason for this boneheaded move by Amazon. I mean, clearly it was intentionally done by SOMEBODY, but who?

I'm not trying to repeat the flame from earlier in the thread, but in all seriousness...who do we think buys more books: right-wing homophobes, or elitist liberal hippies?

Hell, who do we think has more disposable income to spend on books in the first place: homophobic evangelicals who believe that the purpose of sex is to make tons of babies, or liberal gays?

Just from a business standpoint it seems wonky.

Im still betting on it having been done by some dipshit middle management type.

What I said isn't completely true, but if you look at the extreme cases, I think I'm right. It's well-known that the most educated members of society---those who presumably read the most---published authors, those with post-graduate degrees, and university professors, are overwhelmingly liberal.

As for the opposite end of the spectrum, an argument could be made that poor people in general don't read much, but I think liberal poor people read more than conservative poor people. African Americans (a traditionally liberal group), despite having problems with illiteracy stemming from the failure of society to address their needs, constitute a major book-buying demographic in the United States. It's basically a separate market; the Black community (though largely poor and without good educational infrastructure) sustains Black novelists, Black poets, Black essayists, Black political commentators, Black spiritual writers that receive absolutely no attention in the broader community. This has largely been the case since the emergence of Black literature and its flowering in the Harlem Renaissance and its analogues. Only in the 1960s did authors like Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes, and Ralph Ellison begin to receive broad scholarly appreciation. With only a few exceptions, it is very hard for contemporary Black writers to cross over into broader appeal, which is terrible because so much is very good. Anyone who likes reading should head over to a good bookstore in an African-American neighborhood.

I don't mean to flame or troll with this, I actually think it is true: if you look at liberals in terms of both cultural output and consumption, it far exceeds that of conservatives. I think it is related to the attitude of "conservation," of preserving the past, valuing the transmission of already-acquired knowledge. Liberals, though, are more willing to critically examine the past and value creativity and making new ways. This is a general sense I get from meeting people, and the sense I get whenever I look up a new author or intellectual.

Conservatives hardly know how to read anyway and certainly don't buy books, so I don't see how this is an issue for Amazon.
Knock it off.

Not to be nitpicky, but is this really censorship? Amazon owns the website, restricting your own speech for fear of offending people may be stupid, but not really censoring.

It's possible it really is a glitch, as the representative said. There are thousands of books on Amazon, so it would be very easy to claim it is targeting one genre. If you show hundreds of books with gay characters being delisted, it seems suspicious, even if there are 10,000 without also being delisted.

If it's not a glitch, then this is very strange indeed. I'm not sure what Amazon's bent is.

oddly enough due to this thread I have brought 3 items off amazon

just brought digimon world again because I played that so much when I was 10 that I've broke the disc :$

SNIP

elitist liberals buy books from local bookstores and jamborees

Yeah, its certianly not a glitch. What is more likely is that some dipshit middle management type was offended by homosexual content.

If they fix it, thats what I'll assume.

Might also be a low-level tech who thinks that this would be a great prank...

Might also be a low-level tech who thinks that this would be a great prank...

Yeah did it for the lulz.

Yeah did it for the lulz.

Something like Drunk Commies legendary and mythical rampage with Jesussaves here on NSG...

Amazon's current party line (which you will get in a form letter if you email them about this) is that it's a "glitch."

A "glitch" that somehow marked Heather Has Two Mommies as "adult content" while skipping over Playboy's Centerfolds.

Perhaps, but if it really were a glitch, the actual content of the books wouldn't matter. If it's a random as a coin toss, it's just as likely Heather will be adult and Playboy won't as the other way around.

Or the "books languishing in the warehouse that they couldn't move because they market's not THAT large" option?
It's all about money. If they can't sell it, it's got to go. Warehouse space that's clogged with things they can't move costs them money.

Except that they aren't moving the books out warehouses, they're just removing them from rankings and lists such as "people who bought [such and such book] also bought [other, gay-themed book]. IF the books weren't selling (and there's no indication they aren't), that would only make the situation worse.

Not to be nitpicky, but is this really censorship? Amazon owns the website, restricting your own speech for fear of offending people may be stupid, but not really censoring.

It's possible it really is a glitch, as the representative said. There are thousands of books on Amazon, so it would be very easy to claim it is targeting one genre. If you show hundreds of books with gay characters being delisted, it seems suspicious, even if there are 10,000 without also being delisted.

If it's not a glitch, then this is very strange indeed. I'm not sure what Amazon's bent is.

Self-censorship is still censorship, and this isn't entirely self-censorship. They're removing books from member's rankings.

Meh.

I honestly don't care. Amazon has the right to sell what it wants to sell.

I use Amazon quite a bit, and I'm conservative. I have books all over the place. That kinda throws the conservatives don't read theory out the window.

Something like Drunk Commies legendary and mythical rampage with Jesussaves here on NSG...

Anyways I just lost my Job at Amazon.

Self-censorship is still censorship...
I don't really see how. When is the absence of speech self-censorship, and when is it just because a person doesn't care to speak?
and this isn't entirely self-censorship. They're removing books from member's rankings.
...but this is indeed censorship, thank you for correcting me.

I personally wonder if the reason they were removed is because they are really 'adult' (which amazon has a right to choose not to sell certian explicit material) and if the fact that they are gay/lesbian is just a coincidence.

Actually, the opposite is true.

Currently classified as "Adult" material: Heather has Two Mommies, a children's book written for grade school-age kids.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Playboy: the Complete Centerfolds, a book which contains 600 pages of overtly and intentionally sexualized pictures of naked women.


Currently classified as "Adult" material: Ellen DeGeneres' biography.

Currently NOT classified as "Adult" material: Ron Jeremy: The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz.


A great many of the books being classifed as "adult" are children's books. Biographies, non-fiction books, and a variety of other books are being deranked. It's not porn and romance stuff, here.

can't say, nor am I defending Amazon's actions... except it's up to them. they are under no obligation to put anyone's works up. People can choose to boycott them. if they do, I wish them luck.

I for one, don't shop on Amazon... so it's no big thing for me.

Apparently, a fair number of groups have already claimed that it was a glitch in Amazon's code which they exploited to make some sort of political point. I presume most of them are lying, but it seems possible that one of those groups of crazies really did do the deed.

(Example here: http://community.livejournal.com/brutal_honesty/3168992.html )

Apparently, a fair number of groups have already claimed that it was a glitch in Amazon's code which they exploited to make some sort of political point. I presume most of them are lying, but it seems possible that one of those groups of crazies really did do the deed.

(Example here: http://community.livejournal.com/brutal_honesty/3168992.html )

Glitch my ass.

Apparently, a fair number of groups have already claimed that it was a glitch in Amazon's code which they exploited to make some sort of political point. I presume most of them are lying, but it seems possible that one of those groups of crazies really did do the deed.

(Example here: http://community.livejournal.com/brutal_honesty/3168992.html )

Seems plausible, I mean, does Amazon have a history of doing stuff like this? I don't think so.

Amazon does have issues. I once did a review of a book and mentioned I wish there could be more but the author died of breast cancer. They edited it out.....

Oh and isn't the free market supposed to prevent that from happening? ;)

Oh and isn't the free market supposed to prevent that from happening? ;)

Eh?

So apparently Amazon.com has started delisting books with adult content. Amazing how many of those happen to contain Gay/Lesbian/Transgender characters. So when the media finally tracks down the culprit who do you think it will be and what reasons will they give. If you want to say if it is right or wrong feel free, but I assume that is a given.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10217715-93.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

This article (what of it I read) and thread, along with poll options seem incomplete. Has Amazon.com delisted heterosexual books for adult content? If so, the decision to delist homoerotic adult books seems to make a lot of sense.

What's more, can't a seller not carry a product that they (for any reason) disagree with? Instead of being mad at Amazon for selling only the products they see fit, I'd recommend shopping elsewhere.

We'll see what happens I suppose.

Eh?

Isn't censorship not in the best interests of Amazon?

Isn't censorship not in the best interests of Amazon?

Well, demonstrably not, which is why Amazon seem to be suffering from a shit storm and outrage from consumers. I highly doubt that government intervention will be needed, and the situation will soon be rectified by Amazon themselves.

This article (what of it I read) and thread, along with poll options seem incomplete. Has Amazon.com delisted heterosexual books for adult content? If so, the decision to delist homoerotic adult books seems to make a lot of sense.

Read Bottle's bit. Obviously not.
What's more, can't a seller not carry a product that they (for any reason) disagree with? Instead of being mad at Amazon for selling only the products they see fit, I'd recommend shopping elsewhere.
It matters because I dont shop from homophobes, and I (and many of us, I would guess) may boycott them if this was a top level decision.

Some middle management prick making this decision because gayz are teh immoralz I could forgive if the action is remedyed.

Read Bottle's bit. Obviously not.

It matters because I dont shop from homophobes, and I (and many of us, I would guess) may boycott them if this was a top level decision.

Some middle management prick making this decision because gayz are teh immoralz I could forgive if the action is remedyed.

Bottle cited no source, so forgive my potential skepticism.

True enough, that many people may well boycott Amazon for it, I'm not saying "If you disagree with the policy, oh well, shop there anyway." I apologize for not being more clear. What I meant was more along the lines of "Well, let them make was business decisions they feel appropriate, and if you don't want to continue shopping there, excercise your right not to buy from them." I think that any earnest attempt to actually try to cut out homo-related material specifically more than hetero-related material will only economically backfire.

Bottle cited no source, so forgive my potential skepticism.

A quick search on Amazon yields results for what Bottle said was not labled adult. Clearly they didnt get rid of them, only stuff about homosexuality, so your "skepticism" would have been remedyed with a bit of effort on your part.

Bottle cited no source, so forgive my potential skepticism.


It's in the OP's article..

A quick search on Amazon yields results for what Bottle said was not labled adult. Clearly they didnt get rid of them, only stuff about homosexuality, so your "skepticism" would have been remedyed with a bit of effort on your part.

Yeah, I'm not one for that 'little bit of effort' thing. In truth, I didn't see Bottle's post until after you referenced it anyway.

I almost think it would've had to be just one jerk being... well, a jerk. I couldn't imagine someone like the CEO, who has a very direct relationship with the companies profit going ahead and doing something like this.

It's in the OP's article..

I read part of that article, but I was referencing something entirely different, which has been effectively sorted out now.

Yeah, I'm not one for that 'little bit of effort' thing. In truth, I didn't see Bottle's post until after you referenced it anyway.

I almost think it would've had to be just one jerk being... well, a jerk. I couldn't imagine someone like the CEO, who has a very direct relationship with the companies profit going ahead and doing something like this.
I also doubt the CEO has that much direct involement on a day to day basis.


Like I said, I suspect its just some middle management asshole high on himself.

I also doubt the CEO has that much direct involement on a day to day basis.

Like I said, I suspect its just some middle management asshole high on himself.

Yeah... seems probable.

snip

Ok, so I know why you made a new account dealy... but I gotta ask what is with your new name? It looks like "True" and throws me off every time! :tongue:

Ok, so I know why you made a new account dealy... but I gotta ask what is with your new name? It looks like "True" and throws me off every time! :tongue:

Its supposed to be "true" but with a v for the you. Its a black metal thing. Dont worry about it.;)

Wait, why did you make a new account?

Wait, why did you make a new account?

Im trying to be less inflamitory and more constructive. I felt a new account would also have the effect of people not pre-judging my posts just because they saw Knights of Liberty next to the text.

Im trying to be less inflamitory and more constructive. I felt a new account would also have the effect of people not pre-judging my posts just because they saw Knights of Liberty next to the text.

Fair enough.

Its supposed to be "true" but with a v for the you. Its a black metal thing. Dont worry about it.;)

Oh, though I listen almost solely to metal, I don't know if I listen to 'black' metal per se....

I'm no good at understanding the sub-genres of music.

Im trying to be less inflamitory and more constructive. I felt a new account would also have the effect of people not pre-judging my posts just because they saw Knights of Liberty next to the text.

That used to be in your sig, correct?

That used to be in your sig, correct?

Da.

Da.

Thats what I thought... I don't read enough of the threads often enough to have expected to have seen it in one of your prior posts.

I don't think this has been posted yet, but Amazon says it has fixed the glitch.
Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009033443_webamazon14.html)

This really does seem to have been a tempest in a teacup. Hundreds of LGBT books were in fact de-listed...out of 57,000+.

I don't think this has been posted yet, but Amazon says it has fixed the glitch.
Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009033443_webamazon14.html)

This really does seem to have been a tempest in a teacup. Hundreds of LGBT books were in fact de-listed...out of 57,000+.

Yeah, I dont think it was a 'glitch'. I think it really was some asshole on a power trip. Amazon is just covering its ass.

But things seem to be fixed. Which is good. Most likely due to public backlash.

Yeah, I dont think it was a 'glitch'. I think it really was some asshole on a power trip. Amazon is just covering its ass.


But why? As Bottle and others have said, there's no real reason for company policy to de-list books with gay characters. It could have been one moron, but I doubt a company as large as Amazon would have one person in charge of the code to do this. It seems far more likely they wrote code that seemed to work, and didn't spend time checking the millions of titles it went through (not surprising). One person noticed that a lot of LGBT titles were gone, and like a Magic Eye, once one person pointed out the apparent pattern, thousands of others did. This explanation seems far simpler than misconduct at Amazon.com.

There goes Heinlein.:tongue:

Speaking of Heinlein, "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." I think a computer glitch or system error or something along those lines is more probable than some anti-gay conspiracy on Amazon's part.

Just seems like a stupid mistake to make. Maybe they should hire programmers from the US..

This really does seem to have been a tempest in a teacup. Hundreds of LGBT books were in fact de-listed...out of 57,000+.

Hi, this is my first post here! I've been stalking the past few days and decided to post.

Anyways, I just wanted to reiterate that the Gay & Lesbian books were a fraction of the many books that were affected by the glitch internationally.

"This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection," said Drew Herdener, the Seattle company's communications director.

"It has been misreported that the issue was limited to Gay & Lesbian themed titles — in fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica. This problem impacted books not just in the United States but globally. It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing books from Amazon's main product search."

wait... there's no outcry when they don't have 'Naughty Night Nurses' and other such books on their list but when the character is homosexual it's suddenly 'censorship' and bad to not have those books?

how 'graphic' are these books? are they your typical 'romance' type or does it plunge into the 'adult' classification?

Because the gay and lesbian books being delisted aren't necessarily erotic by nature. All that it requires is that reviewers tag it with a keyword that pertains to gay and/or lesbian and Amazon automatically delisted them no different than straight-up erotica.

No different than if the Chinese government was an online bookseller and automatically delisted books with the keywords "Democracy," "Falun Gong," and "Tiananmen Square".

I'm blaming marketing.

Funny how a strategy changes during a recession.

Who cares? I buy books at the local used book shops and the physical locations for Hastings, Barnes & Noble, and Borders.

who cares WHY they did it? why do business with them in the first place anyway? anything amazon can do powel's in portland oregon can do better. besides, a bunch of people i knew from PorSFiS used to work there (at powel's) when i was living up that way.

But why? As Bottle and others have said, there's no real reason for company policy to de-list books with gay characters. It could have been one moron, but I doubt a company as large as Amazon would have one person in charge of the code to do this. It seems far more likely they wrote code that seemed to work, and didn't spend time checking the millions of titles it went through (not surprising). One person noticed that a lot of LGBT titles were gone, and like a Magic Eye, once one person pointed out the apparent pattern, thousands of others did. This explanation seems far simpler than misconduct at Amazon.com.

Amazon's public statements, as given to newspapers and the like, are that this was a glitch, and completely random. Amazon's private statements, as given to affected authors (http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html), tell a very different story:


In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.

Best regards,
Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage

So where the public aren't looking, they are quite willing to admit this was deliberate, even when the works delisted have no 'adult' content whatsoever, beyond containing characters who aren't straight. The horror.

Ah well, they've just lost at least one customer.

Bottle cited no source, so forgive my potential skepticism.

I'm the primary source. I know this may shock some folks, but it's actually possible for you to go verify things for yourself. Which is what I did when I first heard about this story. It really works!

I don't think this has been posted yet, but Amazon says it has fixed the glitch.
Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009033443_webamazon14.html)

This really does seem to have been a tempest in a teacup. Hundreds of LGBT books were in fact de-listed...out of 57,000+.
Lol @ "tempest in a teacup."

What tempest? People saw Amazon do something very stupid. People busted Amazon on being stupid. Amazon's stupidity has cost them business, which is precisely what should happen in a free market. People wrote emails to let Amazon know they were unhappy and were no longer going to give Amazon money, and people spread the word about a policy they felt was inappropriate; that's PRECISELY the right thing to do in situations like this.
=

I don't think this has been posted yet, but Amazon says it has fixed the glitch.
Link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009033443_webamazon14.html)

This really does seem to have been a tempest in a teacup. Hundreds of LGBT books were in fact de-listed...out of 57,000+.

If this was a glitch, I will buy a hat and eat it. Oh yeah, a PR glitch - this information never should've made it to the news outlets.

in fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica
Wouldn't that be the point? Why wasn't Erotica in its entirety blackballed and the rest left alone?

If this was a glitch, I will buy a hat and eat it. Oh yeah, a PR glitch - this information never should've made it to the news outlets.
Or sent this (http://pics.livejournal.com/markprobst/pic/0000kcdw) response to many people who requested information of the 'glitch'.

Wow does anyone else hear Rage Against the Machine playing in the back of your head.


...They don't need to burn the books they just remove them.

Likely it was a glitch although it could be on purpose I guess it will come out in the coming months. I don't think Amazon cares one way or the other on the issue of homosexuality. If the books aren't selling then by all means remove them or mark them down. That would be a whole other issue.

If this was due to customer complaints they should just come out and say. Look we did this because people complained, we don't care one way or the other. I would not let the company take the heat for this one. If people wrote in saying I don't want to see those book they should open that up to the public. They can choose not to release the letters themselves although I doubt they are private information.

Seriously it was likely a mistake, they would like to be able to blame an over zealous manger somewhere but likely not. If there is one though there are probably many, so what other books are also not being properly shown. Sounds like a bug to me.

Wow does anyone else hear Rage Against the Machine playing in the back of your head.


...They don't need to burn the books they just remove them.

Likely it was a glitch although it could be on purpose I guess it will come out in the coming months. I don't think Amazon cares one way or the other on the issue of homosexuality. If the books aren't selling then by all means remove them or mark them down. That would be a whole other issue.

If this was due to customer complaints they should just come out and say. Look we did this because people complained, we don't care one way or the other. I would not let the company take the heat for this one. If people wrote in saying I don't want to see those book they should open that up to the public. They can choose not to release the letters themselves although I doubt they are private information.

Seriously it was likely a mistake, they would like to be able to blame an over zealous manger somewhere but likely not. If there is one though there are probably many, so what other books are also not being properly shown. Sounds like a bug to me.

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, internal Amazon responses to authors who were affected by this made it clear it wasn't a bug, but rather a deliberate action on the part of Amazon.

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, internal Amazon responses to authors who were affected by this made it clear it wasn't a bug, but rather a deliberate action on the part of Amazon.

Alright then. Now you have a choice. You can vote with your dollars. Make sure you write to them and tell them all the money you spent at say Barnes & Nobles or Chapter or where ever could have been spent on their site and until they issue a public apology you will continue your current buying habits. Make sure tell them to have a nice day.

Alright then. Now you have a choice. You can vote with your dollars. Make sure you write to them and tell them all the money you spent at say Barnes & Nobles or Chapter or where ever could have been spent on their site and until they issue a public apology you will continue your current buying habits. Make sure tell them to have a nice day.

I already have. I have cancelled my Amazon account, and will now be getting stuff through secondhand bookshops, the local independent bookstore, and Barnes&Noble (where needed).

One customer isn't much, but I can't be the only person who is irritated enough by this to turn my back on Amazon.

Heh heh well they do have a good selection. I mostly get movies. I like the simplicity of their site. I may rethink my buying options. It wasn't against my own interests so I would have to feel slighted by proxy.

If it was on purpose they need to come out and say so. Likely it was due to customer complaints. I really have a hard time believing that they would not want to sell books to one segment of the market. I didn't think Amazon was politically motivated.

Considering Amazon has begun to rectify this embarassing situation, Im thinking an account cancelation on my part wont be needed.

Possible explanation of the events. (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/24397/1231/) Of course it totally rules at Amazon being run by a bunch of homophobes which we all know they are.

Possible explanation of the events. (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/24397/1231/) Of course it totally rules at Amazon being run by a bunch of homophobes which we all know they are.

So some loser gets upset that "gays" keep flagging his Craigslist ads looking for women to shoot up with so he responds by damaging Amazon.com's reputation. You know, if I were on Amazon's legal department this chump would have a nice crosshair painted on him.

So some loser gets upset that "gays" keep flagging his Craigslist ads looking for women to shoot up with so he responds by damaging Amazon.com's reputation. You know, if I were on Amazon's legal department this chump would have a nice crosshair painted on him.

We'll see if its true because Amazon will ream him. But I doubt it is. I dont think any hacker is that stupid to publically say "I tried to damage a huge corporation who have more lawyers then I do brain cells!"

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, internal Amazon responses to authors who were affected by this made it clear it wasn't a bug, but rather a deliberate action on the part of Amazon.

I think it more likely that the Amazon responses make it clear that some people in Amazon were utterly clueless but sent responses without knowing what they were talking about anyhow.

I dont think any hacker is that stupid to publically say "I tried to damage a huge corporation who have more lawyers then I do brain cells!"Unlike the people who post on facebook that they're skiving from work and then act hurt when somebody brings this to their bosses' attention? Believe me, some people are that stupid... and being able to 'hack' like that doesn't necessarily rule out cluelessness in other respects...

I think it more likely that the Amazon responses make it clear that some people in Amazon were utterly clueless but sent responses without knowing what they were talking about anyhow.

Well, maybe so. I don't particularly like their grip on the market anyway, and a bit of inconvenience is probably a good thing for me, so I shall stay away.

wait... there's no outcry when they don't have 'Naughty Night Nurses' and other such books on their list but when the character is homosexual it's suddenly 'censorship' and bad to not have those books?

how 'graphic' are these books? are they your typical 'romance' type or does it plunge into the 'adult' classification?

I personally wonder if the reason they were removed is because they are really 'adult' (which amazon has a right to choose not to sell certian explicit material) and if the fact that they are gay/lesbian is just a coincidence.

This sheds new light on it. It appears the issue isnt "graphic content" but just the fact that its about "teh gayz".

Bottle, you have just deprived me of my speech.

She just killed my speech. After posting that, it seems almost pointless to debate. All I can say is: "Amazon, WTF?"

This article (what of it I read) and thread, along with poll options seem incomplete. Has Amazon.com delisted heterosexual books for adult content? If so, the decision to delist homoerotic adult books seems to make a lot of sense.

What's more, can't a seller not carry a product that they (for any reason) disagree with? Instead of being mad at Amazon for selling only the products they see fit, I'd recommend shopping elsewhere.

Bottle cited no source, so forgive my potential skepticism.

I read part of that article, but I was referencing something entirely different, which has been effectively sorted out now.


I know, I'm late and all, but man, this has to be the worst example in a while of people vigorously commenting on something when they haven't even read the thing they're commenting on - which the OP linked them to.

This is right there in the article linked to in the OP, only a few very short paragraphs down:
Certainly, one could make an argument that deranking titles with "adult" themes would make a reasonable policy for a site that attracts a wide range of the Internet population. But as demonstrated by an online petition that has already attracted more than 4,000 signatures, the policy appears to be biased against books with gay, lesbian, and transgendered characters.

Here's a sampling of books titles that the petition's backers noted are still ranked in the listing system (all notes and descriptions on the titles are supplied by the petition supporters):

• "Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds" by Chronicle Books (pictures of over 600 naked women)
• Rosemary Rogers' "Sweet Savage Love" (explicit heterosexual romance)
• Kathleen Woodiwiss' "The Wolf and the Dove" (explicit heterosexual romance)
• Bertrice Smal's "Skye o'Malley," (which are all explicit heterosexual romances)
• Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" (which is a very explicit sexual graphic novel)

The petition supporters note that the following titles with gay and lesbian themes are no longer ranked on Amazon:

• Radclyffe Hill's classic novel about lesbians in Victorian times, The Well of Loneliness, and which contains not one sentence of sexual description;
• Mark R. Probst's YA novel "The Filly" about a young man in the wild West discovering that he's gay (gay romance, no sex);
• Charlie Cochrane's "Lessons in Love" (gay romance with no sex)
• "The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience," edited by Louis-George Tin (non-fiction, history and social issues)
• "Homophobia: A History" by Bryan Fone (nonfiction, focus on history and the forms prejudice against homosexuality has taken over the years)

Gah.

Lol @ "tempest in a teacup."

What tempest?
The public outcry. It's not an expression I say a lot, so maybe I misused it.

Wouldn't that be the point? Why wasn't Erotica in its entirety blackballed and the rest left alone?
Perhaps because things like Playboy are classified as "photography." Or, perhaps that was the intention, to de-list only erotica and the bug de-listed other stuff as well.

So where the public aren't looking, they are quite willing to admit this was deliberate, even when the works delisted have no 'adult' content whatsoever, beyond containing characters who aren't straight. The horror.

Ah well, they've just lost at least one customer.

I doubt the people who sent the emails actually read the works of each author who asked about de-listing. Much more likely is the customer representative knew books were being de-listed because of their adult content, and naturally assumed the author's works fell into that category.

I have no high opinion of Amazon; maybe this was a conscious decision on their part. However, I have no reason to suspect them of an anti-gay agenda, while I have every reason to suspect a company this large dealing with a stock so enormous to make pretty whopping clerical mistakes.

I have no high opinion of Amazon; maybe this was a conscious decision on their part. However, I have no reason to suspect them of an anti-gay agenda, while I have every reason to suspect a company this large dealing with a stock so enormous to make pretty whopping clerical mistakes.

You have to wonder about things. First they said it was a policy and then it was a glitch.

It's about "adult" content and yet they sell vibrators and have rankings for them.....

All and all I can say I am not surprised they did this....

You have to wonder about things. First they said it was a policy and then it was a glitch.

It's about "adult" content and yet they sell vibrators and have rankings for them.....

All and all I can say I am not surprised they did this....

Oh, I'm sure the policy is to de-list adult content. The reason so many people were (rightfully) upset was that it wasn't just adult material being de-listed, and I think it's more likely that part was a mistake.

Private business' can do as they wish if they choose not to sell something for whatever reason that is up to them.

Don't like it?

Well don't purchase their proucts.

I'm not trying to repeat the flame from earlier in the thread, but in all seriousness...who do we think buys more books: right-wing homophobes, or elitist liberal hippies?

Hell, who do we think has more disposable income to spend on books in the first place: homophobic evangelicals who believe that the purpose of sex is to make tons of babies, or liberal gays?

Just from a business standpoint it seems wonky.

Have we got some sort of evidence of this?

Private business' can do as they wish if they choose not to sell something for whatever reason that is up to them.
Sure, but those reasons can still be bigoted and fucking stupid.

Don't like it?

Well don't purchase their proucts.
Exactly the reason Amazon have done a u-turn/fixed the glitch.

Im trying to be less inflamitory and more constructive. I felt a new account would also have the effect of people not pre-judging my posts just because they saw Knights of Liberty next to the text.

I might have known, I thought you reminded me of someone

Sure, but those reasons can still be bigoted and fucking stupid.

True, I'm not denying it

Exactly the reason Amazon have done a u-turn/fixed the glitch.

Yes it appears so.

Anyways, I just wanted to reiterate that the Gay & Lesbian books were a fraction of the many books that were affected by the glitch internationally.

No, one would have really cared about it if hetro porn was the only thing that was taken off the shelves

Have we got some sort of evidence of this?

Do you have any evidence to prove the claim wrong?

I will add who practices censorship more, the cons or the libs?

Do you have any evidence to prove the claim wrong?

I'm not the one making a claim here.

I will add who practices censorship more, the cons or the libs?

What has this got to do with anything?

I know my left wing government wants to place in censorship. What abot China? Cuba? Yeah communists are on the right.

I'm not the one making a claim here.

You are challenging it thus you think it wrong. How is it wrong?

What has this got to do with anything?

I know my left wing government wants to place in censorship.

Ok on what?

What abot China? Cuba? Yeah communists are on the right.

I thought I was talking about the US. Ok. Two countries out of how many. However, lets look at what a journalist group reported in 2006

http://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/10-most-censored-countries.php

Cuba is listed with North Korea the first. Now of the others how many are conservative in general? How many are liberal? Easy none listed are liberal.

You are challenging it thus you think it wrong. How is it wrong?

No I am asking for some backing for this claim that is being made. Unlike you I will not take things at face value just because someone on the internet said it was true or that it is a well known fact. If it is so well known show the studies that back up this fact.

Do you have any? Or are you simply go to take it because someone said it was so.

Ok on what?

Whatever they feel people shouldn't be seeing.

I thought I was talking about the US. Ok. Two countries out of how many. However, lets look at what a journalist group reported in 2006

http://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/10-most-censored-countries.php

Cuba is listed with North Korea the first. Now of the others how many are conservative in general? How many are liberal? Easy none listed are liberal.

I still have no idea why you brought this up. The OP is talking about a company that can sell whatever it wants or doesn't want.

Or do you think it proves your point that conservatives don't read?

Within the United States, I think it's pretty clear that conservatives are more likely to favor censorship. The usual justification is "think of the children." This is why the ACLU, which concentrates the most on defending First Amendment rights, is so hated by conservatives.

This is also why book-burnings are universally conservative events in the US, and why many challenged books list (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/frequentlychallengedbooks.cfm) are littered with complaints about sexuality and the occult, with only occasionally "racist" works making the list.

Actually, here's (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/reasonsbanned.cfm) a particularly nice long list that talks a lot about why given books have been banned. I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that 90% of book bannings in the US are for conservative reasons, and of the remaining handful, it may not just be liberals complaining about Huck Finn. Most conservatives find 19th century racism at least out of fashion.

Private business' can do as they wish if they choose not to sell something for whatever reason that is up to them.

Don't like it?

Well don't purchase their proucts.

You're kidding, right?

Do you even read threads before you post in them. This ENTIRE thread has revolved around the discussion about how to best make Amazon change this particular practice.

Private businesses can do as they wish and choose not to sell something for whatever reason they like. Consumers can vote with their dollars and coerce change out of businesses by refusing to give them money until they change their distaseeful practices.

You're kidding, right?

Do you even read threads before you post in them. This ENTIRE thread has revolved around the discussion about how to best make Amazon change this particular practice.

Private businesses can do as they wish and choose not to sell something for whatever reason they like. Consumers can vote with their dollars and coerce change out of businesses by refusing to give them money until they change their distaseeful practices.

So are you saying I am wrong?

So are you saying I am wrong?

I'm saying your snarky post was unnecessary because no one disagreed with you in the entire thread. No one disagrees that a company has the right not to sell certain products if they so choose.

You seemed to ignore, however, that consumers have every right to bitch and moan and complain and threaten not to frequent said business unless the practice is changed.

I'm saying your snarky post was unnecessary because no one disagreed with you in the entire thread. No one disagrees that a company has the right not to sell certain products if they so choose.

You seemed to ignore, however, that consumers have every right to bitch and moan and complain and threaten not to frequent said business unless the practice is changed.

Except I was making a comment to the story in the OP, unless of course that sort of thing is frowned upon nowadays.