MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Amazon removing gay ebooks from their catalog again

anamardoll · 05-12-2011, 08:03 AM

Xanthe,

The issue is not that Amazon has explicitly stated "no yaoi manga". That would be their right to do so, and it would be clearly outlined in their TOS.

The issue is that they have a vague "no objectionable stuff" TOS, and they've chosen to apply it to, say, yaoi manga and not to, say, HAWT AMERICAN GIRL ON GIRL VACATIONS or whatever. (I don't feel interested in providing an Amazon link to porn - you can find it yourself if you want.)

When someone intentionally crafts a vague rule so that they can apply it only to a certain group while another "equally guilty" (under the TOS terms) group consistently doesn't get the rule applied to them, it would be discrimination.

It would be like if Amazon had a "no religious works allowed" rule and then ignored Christian lit but pulled Muslim lit. Or a "no coming of age dramas" rule but only pulled the ones with black protagonists and left the ones with white protagonists alone.

Having a "no porn" rule, but only applying it to gay manga and not any of the other explicit works on Amazon is discrimintation. Having an explicit "no gay porn" rule would at least make it clear where Amazon stood, and would inform customers about exactly what policies they were supporting with their money.

---

It SOUNDS like, in this case, the publisher re-uploaded a new version, an Amazon employee reviewed the material before approving the upload, and Ze found the material to be objectionable. I'm not terribly surprised to hear that someone found gay porn more shocking than "straight" girl-on-girl porn (which is far more normalized in our culture - remember the "pillow fight" beer commercial a while back?), but Amazon should have checks and balances in place to make sure their rules are applied equally and fairly or not at all.

05-12-2011, 08:03 AM	#195
anamardoll Chasing Butterflies Posts: 3,132 Karma: 5074169 Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: American Southwest Device: Uses batteries.	Xanthe, The issue is not that Amazon has explicitly stated "no yaoi manga". That would be their right to do so, and it would be clearly outlined in their TOS. The issue is that they have a vague "no objectionable stuff" TOS, and they've chosen to apply it to, say, yaoi manga and not to, say, HAWT AMERICAN GIRL ON GIRL VACATIONS or whatever. (I don't feel interested in providing an Amazon link to porn - you can find it yourself if you want.) When someone intentionally crafts a vague rule so that they can apply it only to a certain group while another "equally guilty" (under the TOS terms) group consistently doesn't get the rule applied to them, it would be discrimination. It would be like if Amazon had a "no religious works allowed" rule and then ignored Christian lit but pulled Muslim lit. Or a "no coming of age dramas" rule but only pulled the ones with black protagonists and left the ones with white protagonists alone. Having a "no porn" rule, but only applying it to gay manga and not any of the other explicit works on Amazon is discrimintation. Having an explicit "no gay porn" rule would at least make it clear where Amazon stood, and would inform customers about exactly what policies they were supporting with their money. --- It SOUNDS like, in this case, the publisher re-uploaded a new version, an Amazon employee reviewed the material before approving the upload, and Ze found the material to be objectionable. I'm not terribly surprised to hear that someone found gay porn more shocking than "straight" girl-on-girl porn (which is far more normalized in our culture - remember the "pillow fight" beer commercial a while back?), but Amazon should have checks and balances in place to make sure their rules are applied equally and fairly or not at all. Last edited by anamardoll; 05-12-2011 at 08:07 AM.