Amazon Censorship Expands

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

oh look! a non-wiki reference for snuff film

This definition is rather in-exact and can be mis-understood. And wrong in that it requries a sexual act. But it states that the same thing as Wikipedia about the existence of snuff films. That is, there is no evidence that they exist.

[Sydney's Mom]

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 agree with the comparison between Wikipedia (which for the most part is pretty good, but must be read critically) and foxnews. Or, you could substitute Sarah Palin's assertion in Going Rogue that she is an intellectual.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

.... Sarah Palin's assertion in Going Rogue that she is an intellectual.

Now that's funny!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by tompe

This definition is rather in-exact and can be mis-understood. And wrong in that it requries a sexual act. But it states that the same thing as Wikipedia about the existence of snuff films. That is, there is no evidence that they exist.

my point in showing that link is that you can find information outside of wiki. I won't use or accept wiki as a source. ever. period

[sbtx99]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't people ever get tired of silly hoopla?

Apparently not... especially if it involves not knowing an exact reason for a decision and jumping to conclusions about the decision.

I'm jumping to the conclusion that when the author signed up to have his titles sold through Amazon, he didn't agree to the part about Amazon having "sole discretion" on the content they "accept and distribute through the Program." And that he didn't agree to the part where Amazon "reserves the right to determine the appropriateness of Titles sold on [their] site."

Or maybe he just figured that vaguely worded guidelines giving Amazon sole rights to determine what they sell would never result in content being removed without explanation.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by sbtx99

I'm jumping to the conclusion that when the author signed up to have his titles sold through Amazon, he didn't agree to the part about Amazon having "sole discretion" on the content they "accept and distribute through the Program." And that he didn't agree to the part where Amazon "reserves the right to determine the appropriateness of Titles sold on [their] site."

Or maybe he just figured that vaguely worded guidelines giving Amazon sole rights to determine what they sell would never result in content being removed without explanation.

I'm certain the author signed something giving Amazon the right to decide to pull his content. I'm sure he didn't even read it - do you read agreements that you cannot change? I am a lawyer, and I don't -I make sure the mortgage has the right amount and terms, but the rest is nonnegotiable. If I want the $$, I have to sign as is.

I'm sure he did figure his content would not be removed without explanation. Welcome to the real world. If he doesn't like it, he can try Random House.

[nguirado]

If you've noticed the Borders, Barnes and Noble, (and now-bankrupt Tower records) magazine selection, they often exclude religious or conservative magazines while featuring their opposite. I've asked the managers about this sometimes, I've never once thought to contact my congressman.

I've also noticed the same bias in many libraries. There, I have a case since I'm actually paying for it.

[caleb72]

The pulling of a couple of books doesn't in itself bother me. If the books themselves are mainly erotica I can even admit that I don't feel a tremendous sense of loss (my apology to those authors). Of course, at least one of the books mentioned in the original post does not seem to be erotica from its description - I still think that Amazon made a bit of a judgement error in this case.

But I think it's a bit simplistic to claim that because Amazon is a business that sell what it likes, issues like this don't/can't have more profound effects on literature.

It's correct that Amazon is only one company and such decisions may be advantageous to competitors. However, that can depend on the place Amazon holds in that market.

You don't really have to examine many facts and figures to at least get the impression that Amazon is a huge presence in the business of selling books in the U.S. in particular. Just being a member of this forum shows that at least for eBooks the name is almost 'omni-present'.

If you are an author - at least of electronic books, the decision to bypass Amazon for integrity reasons (eg story depicts graphic scenes of gay rape) is a costly one I would imagine.

I just wonder if actions like this can result in authors self-editing in an attempt to be 'acceptable' to Amazon's content guidelines. In this case, I'm not as worried about the impact on the author, but more on the impact on literature in a wider context.

Yesterday, the red button was adult incest in an erotica setting. Today it's gay rape in a non-erotica setting. What is it going to be tomorrow?

If we're lucky, it means that alternatives to Amazon flourish and authors feel they have a wide range of choices available to them that are viable and potentially profitable. However, in a slightly less desirable outcome you could start seeing stories white-washed and diluted before consumption.

That may well satisfy a large body of readers who prefer sanitised content - but is it what we all want? And should we be slightly more concerned - even if just academically, in the possibilities?

Regards
Caleb

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I've also noticed the same bias in many libraries. There, I have a case since I'm actually paying for it.

I have noticed the same thing. The Chicago Public Library has mostly bestsellers, and a bunch of Harlequin Romances. But my suburban library system has a few bestsellers and gay romances. Given the demographics of the city and the burbs, I find this strange. But I get CPL on reciprocal privileges, so I am good, even though my home library gets things that don't appeal to me.

[HansTWN]

The problem is not Amazon. The problem is that the "moral minority" -- those who try to impose their strict views on others can wield such power to make businesses believe that pulling such books is in their best interest. This just shows what a sad state freedom of speech is in, a number of complaints can lead Amazon (and others) to pull "offending" items and takes us further along the road to a small but active minority dictating what everybody else gets to see or read.

And it wouldn't really matter if those who want such items to be sanitized are a majority -- the rights of everybody have to be respected.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is not Amazon. The problem is that the "moral minority" -- those who try to impose their strict views on others can wield such power to make businesses believe that pulling such books is in their best interest. This just shows what a sad state freedom of speech is in, a number of complaints can lead Amazon (and others) to pull "offending" items and takes us further along the road to a small but active minority dictating what everybody else gets to see or read.

And it wouldn't really matter if those who want such items to be sanitized are a majority -- the rights of everybody have to be respected.

I notice you are in Taiwan. Are you an American citizen living abroad? Wonderful description of 1st amendment!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I notice you are in Taiwan. Are you an American citizen living abroad? Wonderful description of 1st amendment!

Actually I am a German citizen living in Taiwan for many years -- I have lived in the US for only three years. But from back when I was young I have always looked to the US an example of freedom and democracy -- unfortunately it seems to be less and less so.

[nguirado]

The problem is not Amazon. The problem is that the "moral minority" -- those who try to impose their strict views on others can wield such power to make businesses believe that pulling such books is in their best interest.

Let's say that Amazon had graphic depictions of the acts in those books on the home page and somebody complained. Would they be "imposing their strict views? If the books in question are the line Amazon draws, I don't think those views are strict at all.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually I am a German citizen living in Taiwan for many years -- I have lived in the US for only three years. But from back when I was young I have always looked to the US an example of freedom and democracy -- unfortunately it seems to be less and less so.

Well, that makes me happy and sad. Unfortunately, it began with the Patriot Act after 9/11, and the economic collapse didn't help things.

Happy New Year!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Well, that makes me happy and sad. Unfortunately, it began with the Patriot Act after 9/11, and the economic collapse didn't help things.

Happy New Year!

The Patriot Act greaty accelerated things, but it really began with religious groups trying to set (or rather influence) the agenda for print, radio, and TV.

But even I don't like to visit the US anymore, you get fingerprinted, your eyes are being scanned, and now you have to fill out long forms in advance. Makes you feel like a criminal being booked at a police station.

Happy New Year right back at you -- though the big festivities here are for Lunar New Year.