Amazon Removed Gay Books from Rankings

[tirsales]

@balok: I do not think Sonist wanted the bible to get censored - more like stating how ridiculous/random the whole list is.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by tirsales

@balok: I do not think Sonist wanted the bible to get censored - more like stating how ridiculous/random the whole list is.

Cute dog:-)

And yes, that's what I meant. But speaking of torture, there are some pretty gruesome descriptions of what happens after the Second Coming, and then in Hell, where all of us non-believers, and apparently all homosexuals, are headed, according to the Holy Book....

[empink]

Has anyone yet seen this piece:

"Amazon's "Glitch" Myth Debunked" (from here)

I am the author of the LAMBDA Notable Book, The Secret Keeping, as well as The Secret Trilogy, Girl Trouble, and several other popular LGBT paperbacks sold on Amazon.com.

All of my novels have been aggressively censored by Amazon since (at least) January of 2008, when they were first released as Kindle editions and promptly rigged in the Kindle store so as not to register any sales ranks and bestselling categories, or to show up properly in Amazon search results. I have also experienced mysterious "sourcing fees" applied by Amazon to the list prices of my LGBT paperbacks, as well as the deletion of five-star customer reviews of them, the removal of their "in stock" status, and a host of other handicapping techniques which are still in effect today.

[snip]

In the first week of March 2009, it suddenly all became crystal clear to us. We pulled every single Saint Marie LGBT title from the Kindle store, deleted all gay/lesbian categories and tags from them, republished them as plain, old, ordinary romances, and then sat back to see what would happen. If we were right, if our theory correct, we reasoned, then we should have sales rankings in approximately twenty-four hours…

Twenty-four little hours later, I couldn’t help but whoop with joy. There were sales rankings on all of my titles in the Kindle store, and some were even on the bestselling lists! A week or two later, we began gingerly adding the gay/lesbian categories once again. This time, however, without the search tags — and without consequence.

CONCLUSION: Censorship was clearly built into Amazon-Kindle’s digital-text-platform years ago when it was programmed to constantly crawl itself for new content and trip the automatic censors whenever it found certain keywords that Amazon’s leadership had designated as forbidden.: Publishers and customers need to be aware that those dirty words (like "gay" and "lesbian" as well as "erotic" or "sexuality" or "adult") will still cast you into the great Kindle abyss for all eternity and that missing sales rankings are really only the tip of the censor’s iceberg. Moreover, even though sales rankings appear to have been restored throughout its site again, now that Amazon has also introduced this program code into its paperback listings, it’ll take awhile for them to completely clean up their system.. That is, if they really want to.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY: This situation has existed in plain view now for more than just one week or even just one year, and I’m sorry to harp on this, but it is apathy that ultimately emboldened Amazon to extend it’s gay and lesbian literary purge to its paperback division last week…

I don't know about anyone else, but this just made me SO ANGRY. This whole thing makes me want to sell my Kindle and set up shop elsewhere.

[Seabound]

empink, thanks for the link. Have you read Saint Marie's trilogy? I recently read them and I could clearly see the talent of the writer in the writing, but I wish she had polished the books more. If she had, the books could have been a whole lot better. Nevertheless, Helaine and Liddy's characters were memorable.

I do not fault the LGBT authors who voiced out their dismay and protest over this Amazon blunder. In a society where homophobia is alive and well and ubiquitous, it was their job to be vigilant. And why should there be malice in the intent before dismay and protest are voiced against that intent and its consequences? For it does not necessarily take malice for actions to have a harmful effect on the LGBT community--all it takes is ignorance. What happened at Amazon was probably the result of ignorance, like what happened with CA Prop 8 was the result of voters' ignorance rather than malice. And ignorance is certainly consistent with Amazon PR's official and nebulous line of--what was it again?--"an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error".

[sirbruce]

They were using the "adult" tag, and didn't understand why their LGBT "plain, old, ordinary romances" weren't showing up in search results? Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. It was wrong for Amazon to consider all LGBT tags as "adult", but that seems to have had little to do with that publisher's problems.

[empink]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

They were using the "adult" tag, and didn't understand why their LGBT "plain, old, ordinary romances" weren't showing up in search results? Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. It was wrong for Amazon to consider all LGBT tags as "adult", but that seems to have had little to do with that publisher's problems.

My brain keeps parsing your post and seizing up at your lack of sympathy for the publishers. Did you read all the content in the blog post I linked? Because it looked to me like the publishers were experimenting to see WHY EXACTLY their books were being excluded and expunged. They saw why--the "adult" tag--but that doesn't make it right that that was the cause of their problems.


Seabound, I'm glad to have been a help. I haven't read the books, actually--I just came across the post by way of links in the livejournal community that was the base for protest and info of some of this whole thing.

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by empink

Seabound, I'm glad to have been a help. I haven't read the books, actually--I just came across the post by way of links in the livejournal community that was the base for protest and info of some of this whole thing.

And in case you decide to get rid of your Kindle, I would just like to say that I'm very happy with my Sony.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by empink

My brain keeps parsing your post and seizing up at your lack of sympathy for the publishers. Did you read all the content in the blog post I linked? Because it looked to me like the publishers were experimenting to see WHY EXACTLY their books were being excluded and expunged. They saw why--the "adult" tag--but that doesn't make it right that that was the cause of their problems.

I don't think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out "pornographic" "adult" titles from it's default lists. I do think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out other titles from it's default lists. Of course, distinguishing between one or the other is difficult, but since this was largely the choice of the publisher, they got what they asked for.

[empink]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I don't think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out "pornographic" "adult" titles from it's default lists. I do think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out other titles from it's default lists. Of course, distinguishing between one or the other is difficult, but since this was largely the choice of the publisher, they got what they asked for.

I obviously disagree. I am an adult. I make my own filters; I don't need Amazon nannying me away from books I want to shop for. I think it is disgusting that they not only do not give any indication that they are doing such filtering, but that they go on to explain it as a "glitch", continue messing with authors' and publishers' livelihoods, and hope no one will notice.

As far as the idea of a publisher "getting what they asked for" because they publish fiction that deals with a valid part of the human condition (i.e. SEX! Nearly everyone does it, for goodness' sake)... pooh to that. The reason why search filters are best when they are user-made/user-directed is because people's opinions on what is and is not taboo differs. You seem to think that "pornographic materials" are not fit to show up in your search results; I think the opposite. You make/activate your own filter, and I will do mine. Of course, if Amazon chooses to "conveniently" insert its own prude filter into the works, I will shop elsehwere.

Seabound, I think I have a nearby Borders with a Sony; it looks pretty enough, but now that the Jetbook is in Bed, Bath & Beyond, I kind of want to have a look at it too. Sony makes a good reader and talks a big game, but I don't doubt that they have the same endgame agenda in mind as Amazon does for the Kindle: become the biggest dog on the street, then use monopoly powers to get their way in everything. I doubt they'll accomplish that in the next five years, though, so they're still a valid option for me, thank goodness

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I don't think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out "pornographic" "adult" titles from it's default lists. I do think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out other titles from it's default lists. ...

Fair.

But I don't think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out religious books, since each one may be offensive to those of other faiths, and to atheists.

And someone else may not think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out right-wing books.

And someone else may not think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out left-wing books.

...

[Ea]

Originally Posted by empink

....but I don't doubt that they have the same endgame agenda in mind as Amazon does for the Kindle: become the biggest dog on the street, then use monopoly powers to get their way in everything. I doubt they'll accomplish that in the next five years, though, so they're still a valid option for me, thank goodness

This makes me wish Amazon would actually stay in USA with the Kindle - then it would be difficult for them to achieve a monopoly situation

[empink]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Fair.

But I don't think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out religious books, since each one may be offensive to those of other faiths, and to atheists.

And someone else may not think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out right-wing books.

And someone else may not think it's wrong for Amazon to filter out left-wing books.

Exactly! I don't see why people still keep trotting out that argument, as if porny books are just inherently improper or unclean or something. No one wants to have content they support filtered out of an influential site like Amazon.com; I don't understand why it is so difficult to see that blocking out books by keyword without consulting customers or requesting their input is bad for everybody.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by empink

As far as the idea of a publisher "getting what they asked for" because they publish fiction that deals with a valid part of the human condition (i.e. SEX! Nearly everyone does it, for goodness' sake)... pooh to that.

That's not my point. My point is that they should have known in advance that adult titles were going to be filtered. Instead, they tagged their GLBT stuff as adult, and it got filtered. This has *nothing* to do with Amazon's misguided GLBT filter issue, and *everything* to do with the publisher tagging them as adult in the first place. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by empink

The reason why search filters are best when they are user-made/user-directed is because people's opinions on what is and is not taboo differs. You seem to think that "pornographic materials" are not fit to show up in your search results; I think the opposite. You make/activate your own filter, and I will do mine. Of course, if Amazon chooses to "conveniently" insert its own prude filter into the works, I will shop elsehwere.

I agree that it's good business policy to allow for people to set their own filters. I also agree, while it my not be *my* preference (I'm no prude either), it's probably good business policy for their default filter to filter out "pronographic" titles. The NYT Bestseller lists filtering standards, too.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by empink

Exactly! I don't see why people still keep trotting out that argument, as if porny books are just inherently improper or unclean or something. No one wants to have content they support filtered out of an influential site like Amazon.com; I don't understand why it is so difficult to see that blocking out books by keyword without consulting customers or requesting their input is bad for everybody.

That would be the *worst* thing, for if we were taking votes some of the more controversial stuff like GLBT books might indeed become filtered. Instead, by focusing on porno books Amazon is filtering out the "low-hanging fruit" that very few will actually get upset over them not being listed on the bestselling lists.

Amazon isn't a Christian or a Conservative bookstore, so it's business smart for them not to filter out GLBT books. They are however still a "mainstream" bookstore, and in that sense the hide the porno just like most everyone else. Those attitudes may change someday, but not today.

[empink]

(Emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by sirbruce

My point is that they should have known in advance that adult titles were going to be filtered. Instead, they tagged their GLBT stuff as adult, and it got filtered.

Uh, HOW? I think you and I are thinking different things when we say "filtered". When I say "filtered" in this content, I mean "stripped of Amazon rank, not showing in search results all over the site, not showing in sidebars and other nifty 'other people bought this' features, not even PAYING THE PUBLISHER ROYALTIES". What do you mean when you say "filtered"? If you mean what happened in this case, there's really no point in us continuing to talk past each other.

OTOH, if you mean the (useless, imo) Google SafeSearch-type stuff, okay, whatever. It does raise the question of why you interpret the publisher's complaint as them whining about their book getting filtered in a legitimate and transparent manner; what does that have to do with this whole situation in the first place? It smacks of trying to refocus the conversation on the victims and paint them as at fault when that is blatantly wrong, and a pointless derail to boot.

Originally Posted by sirbruce;

They are however still a "mainstream" bookstore, and in that sense the hide the porno just like most everyone else.

I don't CARE if they "hide the porno" so long as I have control over what is hidden from me. In this case, it appears like I do not, so continuing to talk about whether it is appropriate or not that they "hide the porno" is useless. Until they show more of an inclination toward transparency than "it was a glitch, honest!", I am going to continue believing that they ARE filtering out things I don't know about, and mistreating publishers and authors and so forth.