Amazon Censorship Expands - Page 10

mr ploppy · 12-31-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbone

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.

If it is, there will probably be some minimum number of complaints before they take them down. It wouldn't be that difficult for some gay-basher outfit to organise an army of do-badders to trip that limit though.

I think it's more likely Amazon fear another pedo-book style backlash against them. Which in a lot of ways would be worse, because there is no knowing where they will stop in this cleansing campaign they seem to be on at the moment.

Pedo-porn, incest-porn, gay-porn. It's not that much of a leap over to straight-porn, then from there onto violence, blasphemy, swearing, etc.

kindlekitten · 12-31-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

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

read for content much? I used it as an example of what rights a company has in items they carry

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If it is, there will probably be some minimum number of complaints before they take them down. It wouldn't be that difficult for some gay-basher outfit to organise an army of do-badders to trip that limit though.

I think it's more likely Amazon fear another pedo-book style backlash against them. Which in a lot of ways would be worse, because there is no knowing where they will stop in this cleansing campaign they seem to be on at the moment.

Pedo-porn, incest-porn, gay-porn. It's not that much of a leap over to straight-porn, then from there onto violence, blasphemy, swearing, etc.

oh I see, you CAN'T read for content, you're a reactionary

kennyc · 12-31-2010, 04:48 PM

Let's drop the personal attacks and stick to the subject please.

CommonReader · 12-31-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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.

I didn't say that they shall offer any book there is, they just should not artificially restrict their offers by removing books that were already on offer. So Amazon acts as quasi-publisher? Then they should at least take a haphazard look at content, instead of arbitrarily removing some books because of some keywords in the title.

mr ploppy · 12-31-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

read for content much? I used it as an example of what rights a company has in items they carry

You used it as an example of items that should be suppressed along with gay porn.

Andrew H. · 12-31-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommonReader

I didn't say that they shall offer any book there is, they just should not artificially restrict their offers by removing books that were already on offer. So Amazon acts as quasi-publisher? Then they should at least take a haphazard look at content, instead of arbitrarily removing some books because of some keywords in the title.

I'm not sure what you mean by "artificially" restricting their offers.

You seem to be arguing that once a book has been put up on Amazon, the book has some "right" to stay on Amazon. I think that this is incorrect, and that it is better for authors to have some time on Amazon than no time.

I also think that requiring Amazon to read all of the self-published stuff on their site would simply result in them not offering self-published stuff because it's not cost effective.

In any event, I fail to see why rejecting a book before it goes on Amazon is any better for the author than removing it afterwards.

kindlekitten · 12-31-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

if Netflix refused to carry snuff flicks would you be upset?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You used it as an example of items that should be suppressed along with gay porn.

I'm not sure why you struggle so with keeping what I say straight. is english your second language?

Sydney's Mom · 12-31-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wikipedia is generally accurate, certainly as much so as most other sources and moreso than Fox News.

vaughnmr · 12-31-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

And you're just being disagreeable. Wikipedia is generally accurate, certainly as much so as most other sources and moreso than Fox News.

I agree, I use it a lot. It's community edited, so the kooks and industry pundits usually have a harder time spreading their nonsence, at least over the long term.

AGB · 12-31-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Does this constitute a disagreement from you? And which part are you laughing at? Do you hold the view that Fox News is more accurate, or do you disagree with the part where it is stated that Wikipedia is as accurate as most others, or is it the first part, where he states that it is generally accurate?

Nyssa · 12-31-2010, 09:33 PM

Fox News is as accurate as a one armed blind man shooting a warped arrow.

tompe · 12-31-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

Tompe... the only thing that you said that wasn't true was "You can only prove mathematical things" which is what my statement referred to and also said that it was beside the point.

I was informal. A more formal and correct statement is that the only thing you can prove are analytical statements. But I guessed that a lot of people here would not understand what an analytical statement is so I used another term to get the point across even if it was not strictly true.

kennyc · 12-31-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGB

Does this constitute a disagreement from you? And which part are you laughing at? Do you hold the view that Fox News is more accurate, or do you disagree with the part where it is stated that Wikipedia is as accurate as most others, or is it the first part, where he states that it is generally accurate?

I'm pretty sure she's laughing with me ... i.e. at fox news being "fair and balanced"

AGB · 12-31-2010, 09:41 PM

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

Sydney's Mom · 12-31-2010, 09:41 PM

Amazon is not the government. They can decide not to publish books on any basis they decide. They initially made their decision based on the 1st amendment, which doesn't say Amazon has to sell a book, just that the government cannot make them pull a book. But that was a public relations nightmare. So now it is up to their judgement, and they won't tell you how they exercise judgement so it can be circumvented? That is exactly the way I draft "outs" in contracts. I can terminate the contract upon 30-days notice, unless we think there is a reasonable basis for and it is in our best interest to terminate sooner. I have had people ask me on what basis we would terminate. I say we are in business, and we aren't going to terminate good customers. Beyond that, I am silent.

If someone wants to bring an antitrust action against Amazon publishing, I suppose they could (anyone can file a lawsuit for anything). But since Amazon has such a small portion of the publishing business, it is a loser.

Wonder if the Moody Bible Institute would consider carrying Playboy?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amazon censorship	dacattt	News	304	01-08-2011 12:58 PM
Amazon expands language support in Kindle Store	Nate the great	News	58	01-20-2010 04:46 AM
Amazon expands the $30 credit	Nate the great	News	0	09-04-2009 08:36 PM

12-31-2010, 04:48 PM	#138
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,898 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Let's drop the personal attacks and stick to the subject please.

12-31-2010, 09:33 PM	#146
Nyssa Series Addict Posts: 6,180 Karma: 167189477 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Florida, USA Device: Kindle Paperwhite (2nd Gen)	Fox News is as accurate as a one armed blind man shooting a warped arrow.

12-31-2010, 09:41 PM	#149
AGB Headbutting stupidity Posts: 1,703 Karma: 2526196 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Greater Cph Device: PRS650	Ah, okay. That makes sense.

12-31-2010, 09:41 PM	#150
Sydney's Mom Wizard Posts: 2,899 Karma: 6995721 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Idaho, on the side of a mountain Device: Kindle Oasis, Fire 3d Gen and 5th Gen and Samsung Tab S	Amazon is not the government. They can decide not to publish books on any basis they decide. They initially made their decision based on the 1st amendment, which doesn't say Amazon has to sell a book, just that the government cannot make them pull a book. But that was a public relations nightmare. So now it is up to their judgement, and they won't tell you how they exercise judgement so it can be circumvented? That is exactly the way I draft "outs" in contracts. I can terminate the contract upon 30-days notice, unless we think there is a reasonable basis for and it is in our best interest to terminate sooner. I have had people ask me on what basis we would terminate. I say we are in business, and we aren't going to terminate good customers. Beyond that, I am silent. If someone wants to bring an antitrust action against Amazon publishing, I suppose they could (anyone can file a lawsuit for anything). But since Amazon has such a small portion of the publishing business, it is a loser. Wonder if the Moody Bible Institute would consider carrying Playboy?