Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Since authors have different rules you can't just 'insert authors into the "fans" or "anti-fans" side of the equation'.

I can very easily because I'm talking about behaviour, not rules. Are you suggesting that author's behaviour on Goodreads is actually moderated differently from anybody else? If so, in policy or in practice?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I can very easily because I'm talking about behaviour, not rules. Are you suggesting that author's behaviour on Goodreads is actually moderated differently from anybody else? If so, in policy or in practice?

I'm saying that you don't have equivalence.

On GR reviewers are the content creators, not the authors. Reviews will be deleted, book titles won't disappear from the site.

I'll try to make an analogy, and yes, I know that it isn't perfect. Imagine that one day Amazon would decide that books which are focused on the personal lives of real people count as harassment and would proceed to remove these books on a Friday after an announcement to that effect. And imagine that this change in policy would be the result of real people harassing authors followed by books being written on that harassment.

[Mivo]

Complaints like these are similar to outcries about the absence of "Freedom of Speech" from people who think that it should cover trolling, gutter language and extreme rudeness on forums, in online games, other people's homes, etc.

Freedom is one of those things that you eventually lose if you misuse and abuse it for too long. If people used Goodreads in the way as described here, then it isn't surprising that it led to restrictions. If you are disrespectful, you reap disrespect in return.

It's not censorship. It's keeping the (their) place usable and enjoyable for everyone instead of letting a few ruin it for others.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I'm saying that you don't have equivalence.

On GR reviewers are the content creators, not the authors. Reviews will be deleted, book titles won't disappear from the site.

I'll try to make an analogy, and yes, I know that it isn't perfect. Imagine that one day Amazon would decide that books which are focused on the personal lives of real people count as harassment and would proceed to remove these books on a Friday after an announcement to that effect. And imagine that this change in policy would be the result of real people harassing authors followed by books being written on that harassment.

As far as I can tell, any member of Goodreads can create content, and as the new guidelines refer to content, it affects everyone, authors included. Authors have an additional set of guidelines they are expected to follow as authors, but are free to shelve books and give reviews from what I can tell. They are not in a parallel universe.

I really can't see why including book listings in this decision is even relevant, as the reason for the change in policy has nothing to do with the existence of books or their listings on the site. I thought that would have been fairly obvious. This seems to be about member content and behaviour on the site and as such, impacts everyone.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Since authors have different rules you can't just 'insert authors into the "fans" or "anti-fans" side of the equation'.

Do they have different rules, or additional rules? Are there different guidelines regarding how they use site functions shared among all members? ^as mentioned above. It seems the authors can be reading/reviewing members like anyone, but I could be wrong there.

[DuskyRose]

They've tried to clarify some of the changes in updates. Here.

Among the updates is this...

Anyone else with reviews or shelves created prior to September 21, 2013 that will be deleted under the revised policy will be sent a notification first and given time to decide what to do.

I'm glad they're finally doing something. I hate it when people use book reviews to rant and rave about everything but the book.

I do think they should just make all shelves private, so no one else can see what they're named. That would have been a lot better than deleting them.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^But there are lots of useful shelves out there amongst friends. When I create a shelf of my favourites other people that have very similar taste in many common titles can check it out to get an individual recommendation style list for things they haven't read yet.

I have no qualms about the new rules. As has been stated, there is a distinct lack of respect with many people these days and the Internet is about the worst place for these people. That and rush hour traffic.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

I do think they should just make all shelves private, so no one else can see what they're named. That would have been a lot better than deleting them.

That would make Goodreads considerably less useful (and fun). Without knowing about member shelvings it becomes quite difficult to know whether a review is worth taking note of or is just that individuals way of reviewing. I read a review which made it seem like the whole point of a book was to insult a (specific but don't ask me which one) religion. A quick look at that persons reviews made it clear that he/she was a one topic individual and so I ignored the review (and the reviewer). Being able to follow the trail like that is important, to me anyway.

If you want a shelf for keeping a record of revolting books and/or authors you want to avoid then simply give it a low-key name. Don't call it "scumbag authors" or anything like that, go for "not for me". After all, we are not going to forget what that shelf is for, are we?

What I hope is that now that Goodreads are enforcing a bit civility on members that they also get a bit stricter at enforcing the rules on authors themselves.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

I do think they should just make all shelves private, so no one else can see what they're named. That would have been a lot better than deleting them.

Surely the best and obvious thing to do would be to give users a choice between making a shelf public or keeping it private. If kept private you ought to be able to name it as obscenely or distastefully as you like without fear of removal, while choosing the public option runs the risk of deletion without warning if you've crossed any lines.

At least that seems like the most sensible thing to me.

[library addict]

According to several GR users their shelves about books labeled as P2P were deleted. But indicating a book was previously fan fiction is about the book not the author.

And as others have pointed out they are removing reviews about negative author behavior but not reviews about positive author behavior.

While I agree somewhat with the sentiment of what GR is trying to do and that reviews should always be about the actual books, the way they've gone about it is causing more issues.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

There are some authors I like a lot but some of their books aren't my taste. Anytime I checked these author's books, I finished checking the same books over and over. Now they're in my "Not my taste" list, so I can skip them next time.

You can still keep that as a note. There are private notes for every book. I use them all the time to remind myself of various parts of the book/why I am or am not reviewing it and so on. Private notes are also available on Shelfari.

I am pretty sure this will impact a small amount of users. There's been lynch mob behavior on both sides, and I think GR has decided to put a stop to it before it runs even more readers off the site.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

I do think they should just make all shelves private, so no one else can see what they're named. That would have been a lot better than deleting them.

They can't do that. What they call "genres" are the user's shelves.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Do they have different rules, or additional rules? Are there different guidelines regarding how they use site functions shared among all members? ^as mentioned above. It seems the authors can be reading/reviewing members like anyone, but I could be wrong there.

It's more like additional rules. We can review and interact just like anyone else, but we are asked by the guidelines and new popups to not leave comments on reviews about our books and to not friend everyone who has ever read our book, looked at our book, shelved it, appeared on a post near ours, etc. There was always a policy asking us not to spam, and I think they will (hopefully) enforce it better. I'm an author, but that doesn't mean I don't receive multiple "recommendations" from the author rec'ing their own book.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

Surely the best and obvious thing to do would be to give users a choice between making a shelf public or keeping it private. If kept private you ought to be able to name it as obscenely or distastefully as you like without fear of removal, while choosing the public option runs the risk of deletion without warning if you've crossed any lines.

At least that seems like the most sensible thing to me.

You've always been able to make your entire profile private if you want and you also can make private notes about any book.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I am pretty sure this will impact a small amount of users. There's been lynch mob behavior on both sides, and I think GR has decided to put a stop to it before it runs even more readers off the site.

For me, the problem is not the change of TOS. It doesn't affect me. The problem is that they change the TOS without warning and delete user content which was valid prior to the change without notice (goodreads staff has acknowledged they have done it). And they say they shouldn't have done it? Of course they haven't. That is the problem, not the change of TOS.