Amazon censorship

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

After someone called those who do read these types of books "godless" I'm not sure if anyone is brave enough to come forward.

(snip)

Actually if I remember correctly, the post in question called the proposal that these types of books were even worth free speech protection a "Godless position."

Although I think that could reasonably be read as meaning that the poster thought people who would actually *read* such books would be Godless or worse, and it wouldn't surprise me if many people took it that way.

Even before that, many people consider their "guilty pleasure" reading to be personal enough that they don't bring it up in public, so it will probably be hard to get information on the actual scope of the problem. For what it's worth, I suspect that the readership for books like that is noticeably smaller than the readership of erotica that caters to more generally held tastes.

Speaking for myself, my concern is provoked not by the number of readers affected, but by the principle of the thing. Indeed, if many readers were affected, I would kind of assume that customer outcry was assured and didn't need much help from me.

Regarding the idea that it is not censorship when a company refuses to carry a book, I recall when we had the Agency 5 price-fixing fight, and Amazon turned off the "buy it now" button for a lot of books. John Scalzi was very upset about it because it seriously impacted, not just his bottom line for that time period, but that of many newer authors who were less well known. Amazon refusing to carry a book has a serious impact on how many people read it. Whether you call deliberately taking actions that reduce the number of people who read a book censorship or not is an argument over sematics, I guess--but let's not confuse "they can find it elsewhere--if they try hard enough" with "it makes no difference."

[mr ploppy]

Why are so many people going on about gods, nazis and slaves?

[haiyeekayakee]

And what about leading by example ? Are customers and authors to be subject to the idle whims and capriciousness of Amazons self-appointed censors, or moral guardians, or whatever it is you want to call them ?

What about professionalism - the ability to do ones job fairly, equitably, non-judgementally and keep ones personal feelings out of it ? If I were running a bookshop I could specialize in certain genres, or I could sell everything. But I wouldn't be so much a hypocrite as to say I love books, but since I don't like this particular one I'm not going to sell it.

To be honest I don't see much difference between this sort of carry-on and, for example, hotel owners refusing to allow gay guests and the like. They may be at different levels of importance, but at the end of the day it's the same thing, personal opinion being judged to be greater and more important than others rights.

What about respect ? Would you respect a music shop that picked out certain albums and refused to sell them to you on the grounds that they thought they were crap or that some lyrics might be offensive ?
Respect goes two ways, where is their respect of the fact that you are a grown adult and don't need a big brother to hold your hand.

If Amazon can do this so lightly and others follow in their footsteps, then what hope freedom, the freedom to write and disseminate books, and read them readily without being silently suppressed by a moral zeitgeist. Is mob rule ok ?

People can hide behind the veneer of saying Amazon can do as they want, and to a certain extent that is true, but I suspect many are saying this because they are not personally being affected. Someone has already provided the quote about 'First they came for..', and I see it as being entirely apt.

Sure Amazon have the right to do what they want, but I'll call them unprofessional, despicable, hypocritical, unethical and cowardly - and deserving of no business from no true book or freedom lover.

I'll even equate them to being the equivalent of modern day book-burners, because by suppressing works that is in essence what they are doing.

I trust I've my feelings and contempt for them clear

[RW2112]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

What about respect ? Would you respect a music shop that picked out certain albums and refused to sell them to you on the grounds that they thought they were crap or that some lyrics might be offensive ?

Ever shop at WalMart? Guess what, they will not (or at least did not, haven't checked them in a while honestly) sell what they deem offensive songs. I know because I used to work as a buyer for the company that supplied WalMart with their music. Guess you'd better stop buying from there too then...

Many businesses restrict what they sell based on the "moral " standards of the towns they operate in. My buying decisions when I was a corporate buyer was based on the guidelines set forth by my superiors so we didn't alienate the majority of our shoppers. That's how retail works, cater to the majority, not the niche. Sorry, your mythical world of freedom to purchase anything under the sun doesn't exist. if it did, there would be shops selling drugs on almost every streetcorner...

[haiyeekayakee]

Originally Posted by RW2112

Ever shop at WalMart? Guess what, they will not (or at least did not, haven't checked them in a while honestly) sell what they deem offensive songs. I know because I used to work as a buyer for the company that supplied WalMart with their music. Guess you'd better stop buying from there too then...

I don't live in America and the more I learn about it the more grateful I am. I live in a country that's infested with a disgusting political oligarchy, but at least that sort of 'I know what's good for you' attitude hasn't seeped down to businesses. I most certainly would stop buying there too if that was their attitute.

Anyways, I've gotten some hyperbole out of my system now so I'm feeling much better

Oh, and drugs are something entirely different, they're illegal. I'm not sure that writing about drugs is.. yet. Incest is also illegal in most parts, is writing about it too ?

As for my mythical world, I'm well aware of that fact, but if someone wasn't to speak up and protest we'd all still be living under kings and tyrants.

And Amazon is an internet giant, they don't need a store on every corner, the internet works differently. I've already asked where they outline the guidelines by which they restrict books internationally dependent on local laws and cultures, but I don't think anybody has replied. Are you telling me they should restrict their sales depending on what town or postcode you're in, that their system should be to that granular a level ? This case seems to demonstrate they can't even do it in the U.S.

They're well capable of catering to all niches, they already do, but retroactively and randomly imposing their vacuous, illogical and unreasoned morals on parts of a niche is something else again.

[screwballl]

Censorship: Too many times this is attached to "government censorship" as if they are the only ones with a say and ability to do this. As a long time computer tech, and working for a company that has subscription based internet filtering, I know that censorship can be done at various levels.
As a parent, we are the censor for our kids, trying to keep them from content we feel is harmful to their development. This is also open to interpretation.
Some parents may see nudity as open and natural and have no problem letting their children watch or read about sexual acts on TV or book or where ever. These same people may keep their kids away from any religious references because they believe it is damaging to their lifestyle and children.
Others (like myself and my wife) have a much more conservative outlook and have a problem letting our 8 year old watch iCarly and these afternoon teen shows where they are groping and kissing or even talking about it at age 12. they also learn proper morals and right from wrong very early on. That is our choice and our lifestyle, and I will not have the government, company or other people dictate how I will raise my kids.

As it pertains to Amazon and pretty much ANY company that does business within the US, they own the service and company, they have every right to allow or disallow any item or service under their name. Would AFA (a very strict Christian company) be called censors for not selling the Kama Sutra? No they have the right to offer and sell, or refuse to sell any item they see fit. By forcing a company or people to do something they do not want, that starts things down the slippery slope to government control aka socialism/communism.
If you owned a grocery store and made the choice to not sell adult magazines or pizza pockets or whatever, would you like it if the government or public pressure attempted to FORCE you to carry the items you choose not to carry? No! We as people and companies have rights, and we will not be forced to sell, carry, buy, or do anything we do not want to.

Let the company make their own decisions on what they do or do not want under their name. There are plenty of other sources to get the material they refuse to sell. We the people do not OWN Amazon, so therefore we have to follow their rules when using their service. If that means you write a book that gets removed, then so be it. STOP whining, get over yourself and find another outlet to sell your material.

[Pookeysgirl]

To be honest I don't see much difference between this sort of carry-on and, for example, hotel owners refusing to allow gay guests and the like. They may be at different levels of importance, but at the end of the day it's the same thing, personal opinion being judged to be greater and more important than others rights.

Are you seriously comparing gay rights to selling books? There's a HUGE difference between allowing a person into a public establishment and selling what could be construed as an offensive book.

I worked for a towing company for a few years as a dispatcher amongst other job descriptions and I had every right to tell someone I wasn't going to boost/tow/unlock their car if I felt like it. It's the company's choice how they want to run their business. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

They do not have to sell anything they don't want to. It's their company.

[haiyeekayakee]

Read my very next line where I said that these are at completely different levels of importance - it's an analogy, and one which I must admit I knew someone would probably jump on

As for your towing company, right now that's not a company it sounds like I would entrust any business to. Just what were your guidelines for not helping somebody, who is possibly in a lot of distress, because 'you didn't feel like it'? Were they already signed up, were these guidelines clear and open, can you just turn up and say nope and walk away ?

The difference is Amazon havn't got guidelines - they are accepting books, then on some apparent whimsy getting rid of them, and providing authors and customers no reasons as to why.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

The difference is Amazon havn't got guidelines - they are accepting books, then on some apparent whimsy getting rid of them, and providing authors and customers no reasons as to why.

Does it matter why? They are a private business where they have every right do allow or disallow anything they want within their own company. That is how ALL businesses are run.

[Penforhire]

Reports of Amazon's e-book market share seem to range between 75 and 90%. Those of you who think this is not a monopoly in the making must have no idea what they like like shortly before they became such. They look like Amazon.com. Their competitors wither and die. Your choice to buy from someone else evaporates.

It would be nice if this monopoly-in-the-making started stepping more lightly than they do now. Their censorship irks me because of their market position. Comparing gay rights to books? I didn't but why not? Are you saying books are not as important? Wrong crowd for that stance, I imagine. Books are some of the most cherished things in this world to me.

[elcreative]

This thread has got totally out of control with absolute rubbish being talked by several people... this is my opinion and I have openly expressed it... my final contribution to the discussion is Amazon have suppressed nothing... you are completely free to obtain anything they don't handle from other sources, if the owners of such things can't be bothered to provide other sources then they are suppressing the availability. As has been repeatedly stated, any business has the right to decide what products they sell, services can be somewhat different but physical product is entirely up to those running and owning a business... and, once again, if you don't like it then you have the option to take your business elsewhere but you don't have the right to dictate what a business "must" sell...

[Pookeysgirl]

As for your towing company, right now that's not a company it sounds like I would entrust any business to. Just what were your guidelines for not helping somebody, who is possibly in a lot of distress, because 'you didn't feel like it'? Were they already signed up, were these guidelines clear and open, can you just turn up and say nope and walk away ?

I have every right to say no to a customer. Even if it's for a service I provide. I have had to say no to tire changes on the highway (if a driver doesn't feel comfortable doing it, he doesn't have to). I don't tow vehicles that are leaking gas without the fire dept on scene to check it. If a customer is being rude and obnoxious I'll leave them on the side of the road without a second thought. I've refused to release cars out of the pound for this very reason.

I don't agree with Amazon pulling the books from the archive without so much as a note saying "Sorry, your refund is on it's way", but I do agree with them being allowed to sell whatever they want.

[haiyeekayakee]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Does it matter why? They are a private business where they have every right do allow or disallow anything they want within their own company. That is how ALL businesses are run.

It does, because they are on the cusp of becoming a monopoly. I have previously stated that with great power comes great responsibility, and companies who are in the position of being or becoming a monopoly should be held to the highest standards. In Europe at least monopolies are strictly regulated, and that is because of the potential harm they can do.

If Amazon become a monopoly in ebooks then they have the power to control what you may or may not read. So this isn't as simple as saying so what, go somewhere else. What will you do when there is nowhere else to flee to ? What will you do when Amazon next decide that they might not like your preferred genre of reading and marginalize that and wipe it out ?

The point being that a corporation as powerful as Amazon should not be unilaterally able to decide what you and I can access. If they provide equal treatment to all, and lay out clear guidelines, then maybe fair enough, but right now they're doing no such thing.

[Avarwen]

This was more than like a cover their ass move by Amazon after the how to rape a child book mess. IMO while I find incest creepy if it's fiction about two adults while I may not like it I don't see the need to pull it.

[haiyeekayakee]

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

I have every right to say no to a customer. Even if it's for a service I provide. I have had to say no to tire changes on the highway (if a driver doesn't feel comfortable doing it, he doesn't have to). I don't tow vehicles that are leaking gas without the fire dept on scene to check it. If a customer is being rude and obnoxious I'll leave them on the side of the road without a second thought. I've refused to release cars out of the pound for this very reason.

Yes, leaking vehicles are dangerous and the like, but we're talking books, they're not something that can usually physically harm somebody.

What Amazon are doing is more akin to turning up and saying 'Oops, your car is pink, that offends me, or it might offend somebody else' and then clearing off.

Now if they have a thing against pink cars, why haven't they put that up clearly and obviously in their terms and conditions ? Why are they leaving some pink cars behind, but not others ? Why have they got anything against pink cars in the first place, what relevance does it have to them ?