Amazon Censorship Expands

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by tompe

No correct. You probably do not know the definition of "snuff movie". Look it up in Wikipedia so you can avoid spreading falsehoods.

oh look! a non-wiki reference for snuff film

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

And calling something that you have never read a "snuff book" because it has the word "rape" in the title doesn't?

did I call that a snuff book? nope, not at all

Originally Posted by tompe

You will not read Wikipedia but you will believe anything you are told?

Wikipedia is usually correct and in this case the information was the same as I have read in a lot of other places (books, articles and so on).

wiki is fraught with errors and unreliable. it does not survive the academic test and I will not rely on it. if you want to use it as starting point, fine. the information gets posted without being vetted. it unfortunately fuels the "I read it on the internet, so it must be true!" mentality. there are many websites that ARE accurate. wikipeida is the swiss cheese of online reference material

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Redcard

I'm wondering if there's some auto-pulldown script that people are clicking on, and if this is some outside campaign. It's how they hide comments... when enough people click the "I don't think this helped me" button and it reaches a magical threshold, based on who clicked it, the review or comment isn't only hidden, it's deleted.

You may be correct. At the bottom of each listing are the buttons to report inappropriate conduct and copyright violations.

This may be an automatic response by Amazon.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I agree that Amazon has a right to sell/not sell what it wants, but because it is so dominant in the marketplace, it has an obligation to be clear as to what it will/will not sell.

This is patently absurd, and has absolutely no legal or ethical standing.

For example, as far as I can tell Amazon doesn't sell any form of "adult" (pornographic) DVD's or movies. Does that mean Amazon is "censoring" adult video?

Walmart is the largest retailer in the US. They carry some items but not others, and routinely redline content. Is it "censorship" if Walmart chooses not to carry Hustler Magazine?

If Amazon chooses not to carry a certain brand of citrus juicer, are they abusing their "monopoly" as a big retailer?

Similarly, Apple redlines a great deal of adult content from its devices, not just movies but apps as well. Is that "censorship?"

And what market share qualifies as a "monopoly?" 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? Or are you just arbitrarily deciding that because Amazon is "big" that they are obligated to a different standard?

Should Smashwords be held to the same standard? Consider their Terms of Service: "2b. Publication at Option of Smashwords. Smashwords may decide not to Publish Author’s work or may decide to discontinue its publication of Author’s work for any reason and for no reason, and no reason need be provided." (And yes, that's the entire paragraph)

Wow, Smashwords must be a real bunch of censorious bastards, and it would be unfair for them to pull a book.

Originally Posted by rhadin

Actually, censorship like this, like Amazon's recent lending program that automatically opts everyone in and was implemented secretly during the holidays when no one was watching, are excellent reasons why everyone should buy a Kindle and make Amazon even more arrogant.

What on earth are you talking about? Amazon was very open about how they are basically adopting the same one-time lending option that B&N offers.

Originally Posted by rhadin

In the end, the relationship between Amazon and its vendors is supposed to be governed by contractual terms that limit what each party can unilaterally do to affect the realtionship. From what I see, the terms are binding on everyone but Amazon and are so fluid at Amazon's whim that they are less contractual terms than terms of enslavement.

Again, this is an absurd position.

In this case, no one is forcing an author to list his or her books on Amazon. Amazon unquestionably has the legal right to drop any content they want from their self-publishing services at any time. The contract is not exclusive and the author/publisher can remove their works at any time. Referring to this as "slavery" is, to put it mildly, hyperbolic.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If those are not next on the list to be banned, then Amazon is not removing "objectionable content," but showing its bigotry and reinforcing the notion that gay sex is somehow less moral than straight sex.

The previous dust-up was over a book of "incest erotica." Should we presume, on that basis, that Amazon is showing its bigotry against children? Or parents? Or straight sex?

If Amazon decided to whack 10,000 gay erotica titles from the rolls, then you'd have a point. That clearly hasn't happened; we're talking about a truly negligible number of books. As such, your conclusion here sounds more like hypersensitivity and/or paranoia than one drawn from a careful analysis of the facts.

[CWatkinsNash]

As what some might call a "Kindle-owning smut lover" I should, I suppose, be outraged. But since I'm also a "Calibre+tools-using ebook lover", I'm not too worried yet. It bothers me that the whole thing seems to be quite arbitrary in execution - that is something I have a problem with. Like some others, my concern is not that Amazon is exercising their legal right to do as they please, it's simply a matter of "where does it stop?"

I am also quite concerned when people claim to be offended by the mere existence of a work of fiction (or in this case, two) that they haven't even read. If any of those folks would like to at least be partially aware of what they are being so horribly offended by, as of last night both of these titles were available on B&N, with samples free for the taking.

And to Saffina: I've already got your book, but I haven't read it yet. It's safe, though, and if Amazon "disappears" it, I'll send my review directly to you.

[exAmazon]

Walmart is the largest retailer in the US. They carry some items but not others, and routinely redline content. Is it "censorship" if Walmart chooses not to carry Hustler Magazine?


This is exactly why I don't shop at Walmart. I can make an informed decision on where to spend my money by knowing a company's stand on "censorship". I also do not shop at Christian book stores. And they are probably happy about that fact.

Amazon made the choice to carry these books, then pulled them. In some cases after years of selling them. But they haven't pulled all of the books in the categories in question. I am confused by who they want to be. So I chose to spend my money elsewhere now.

Adding to my confusion are statements from Amazon like this:

http://goo.gl/ttGtT

Amazon's Russ Grandinetti wants to make “every book ever written in any language, in print or out of print, all available within 60 seconds.”

There are a lot of options out there to find what every you want. Amazon is not the be all end all of online stores. I hope this debacle helps smaller online retailers grow.

[kennyc]

exAmazon eh?

Welcome? I think? to MR.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by exAmazon

This is exactly why I don't shop at Walmart.

That's fine, and that's your choice.

But that still doesn't make Walmart's or Amazon's decision not to carry a specific title "censorship." There is a huge difference between "a retailer choosing not to carry Item Y" and "official suppression of content."

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by exAmazon

Amazon made the choice to carry these books, then pulled them. In some cases after years of selling them. But they haven't pulled all of the books in the categories in question. I am confused by who they want to be. So I chose to spend my money elsewhere now.

If you are consistent, you will spend your money nowhere, as there is is nowhere that won't exercise some judgment in which books to carry.

[screwballl]

all this anti-capitalist, anti-free market talk is making me hungry


I guess its time to force every business to sell every item so you can buy what you want at any store anywhere.... go buy a Kindle at McDonalds, go buy a roast duck from Newegg, go buy a Dell from the skateboard store... see how asinine that sounds?

Or even more on topic: go buy a Whopper at Dairy Queen... see? Just because DQ is a fast food place, following the line of reasoning from people here, they should be required to sell all food from every type of similar food restaurant since they are in the same business?
AND not be allowed to drop any item at any time? If that was the case we would have to stand there looking at menus the size of a drive in movie theater screen!

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I would. I stayed out of the pedophile book discussion, because I'm not sure what I think of instruction manuals for crimes (although I do own a set of books called "How To Kill," vols 1-5), and can understand the problems with distributing books that tell people how to commit crimes and evade the law; I'm not sure that some felonies should be more acceptable to publish about than others. But fiction is not instruction manuals; novels that contain depictions of crimes aren't instructing or encouraging people to commit those crimes. (If they are, murder mysteries should be removed from the shelves.)

I read erotica, including gay erotica, including books with sexual activities that would be illegal or immoral in real life. I could offer solid psychological and sociological reasons for the existence of these books and the importance of exploring these themes in literature; I'm not going to clutter the thread with that because I suspect that the people who think "those are icky topics and anyone who reads them is a vile pervert" aren't going to be persuaded otherwise, because they're not basing those opinions on anything rational, just their own gut revulsion at the topic itself. Everyone else doesn't need the explanation, because the real issue isn't "is this, or is it not, Real Art and therefore justifiable" but "should one segment of society be allowed to tell another what they can enjoy reading?"

In this case, Amazon is banning books with themes of gay rape. If they're not also banning books with themes of heterosexual rape, that's likely very illegal. (Discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal in many US states.) And there are a great many heterosexual romance novels that are founded on rape--she's abducted by a tall, dark stranger, who ravages her for weeks, and she gradually grows to love him anyway.

If those are not next on the list to be banned, then Amazon is not removing "objectionable content," but showing its bigotry and reinforcing the notion that gay sex is somehow less moral than straight sex.

Why is your attraction to these topics more rational that somebody's revulsion? You find it arousing or attractive in some way and other don't.

And, again, why do you feel the need to force people to carry things that you agree with? Many people who claim to just want to be left alone actually want to force their opinions on people.

[CommonReader]

Unless it is clearly specialized I expect a bookstore to offer me any book it can. I certainly don't want or expect a bookstore to make any sort of value judgments on the content of books.
This expectation is even more valid for booksellers that try to bind me into a close relationship, as Amazon clearly does with the Kindle.
Once a bookstore arbitrarily refuses to sell titles with sexual keywords, what do we have to expect next? The refusal to sell books that violate certain political sensitivities?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Unless it is clearly specialized I expect a bookstore to offer me any book it can. I certainly don't want or expect a bookstore to make any sort of value judgments on the content of books.

This is, of course, completely unrealistic. I know you can't find these books at Borders, for example.

Note, too, that Amazon is only applying these standards to self-published books.

This expectation is even more valid for booksellers that try to bind me into a close relationship, as Amazon clearly does with the Kindle.

All bookstores would like to bind you into a close relationship.

Once a bookstore arbitrarily refuses to sell titles with sexual keywords, what do we have to expect next? The refusal to sell books that violate certain political sensitivities?

If they stop selling some books, maybe they will soon only sell *one* book! And it will be Mao's Little Red Book!!!

See, I can do that, too.

As I said upthread, Amazon is acting both as retailer and as a quasi-publisher for these books. No one on this thread would complain of censorship if Macmillan refused to publish a given title for any number of unarticulated reasons.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by mboothe

First an instruction book on how to rape children, now this. What kind of person would actually defend these books?

Anyone with any sense. Do you really think the moral minority will be happy once all those type of books are gone? Or will they just look around for another type of book to object to?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

did I call that a snuff book? nope, not at all

You likened it to a snuff film being sold by Netflix.