Amazon censorship

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by haiyeekayakee

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 ?

Because there are different shades of pink.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Not a public school in the U.S., which is funded by taxpayer dollars and the occasional tithe from a state lottery fund. Further, a (non-college) school has a student body made up of minor children who are protected by various statutes from material deemed offensive (or, as the FCC likes to say, "in the prurient interest"). Where that line exists is determined by the community being served; history shows that if a book is banned in a public school, you'll have to go a lot further than the local library to find it, as there's a good chance it's banned there as well.

A business is regulated by a totally different set of laws and acts as a for-profit entity with completely different priorities. Amazon's priority right now is the holiday shopping season. As long as they adhere to the law, they can sell (and more to the point, not sell) whatever they like, and they can make that distinction arbitrarily. Taking the already-purchased ebook "back" without notice or a refund is absurd, however, and Amazon screwed up on that one without a doubt.

Why do you keep trying to turn a moral argument into a legal one?

Schools and libraries can and do censor books. Censorship is an action whose definition is devoid of a judgement of right or wrong (about the action). I believe that there is good censorship, like when a parent keeps explicit material away from their child. Or a school doing the same thing. Or the FCC having requirements for shows using the public airwaves (though I take issue with some specific choices of theirs).

[bjones6416]

My personal summation of this thread:

Position 1: "Amazon has no right to do that!!"

Position 2: "Yes, they do!!"

Really, it's all been said. Has anybody actually had their opinion changed by reading the same arguments over and over? My only question was "did it really happen?" and it was answered to my satisfaction. Agree to disagree on this, maybe?

[DiapDealer]

Agree to disagree on this, maybe?

Unfortunately, this solution leaves no room for righteous indignation.

[DavidI]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Amazon is under no obligation to distribute anything and everything.

It doesn't matter how big they are, how many other titles they offer, or even some inconsistencies (alleged or real) in what they pull.

If they don't want to carry a book, they should not have to carry it.

Yes, Amazon is free to sell whatever they choose. I never said otherwise. Yet that doesn't mean that I am not free to disagreeing with their decision and to voice my disagreement.

[Pookeysgirl]

Originally Posted by bjones6416

My personal summation of this thread:

Position 1: "Amazon has no right to do that!!"

Position 2: "Yes, they do!!"

Really, it's all been said. Has anybody actually had their opinion changed by reading the same arguments over and over? My only question was "did it really happen?" and it was answered to my satisfaction. Agree to disagree on this, maybe?

You're right. Done.

[screwballl]

How is Amazon anywhere close to a Monopoly?

Amazon tossed some numbers out there saying they sell 180 ebook for every 100 hardcover books (dated for a 30 day period in June 2010 which falls within that +80% you claim), but if you look at overall total sales of all paper based books, the number is closer to 180 ebooks per 614 paper books, which flips it to a +70% favoring paper books.

As for the ebook market as a whole, Q3 2010 saw sales in the $120 Million dollar range for US only sales. Amazon alone has not released their sales numbers, only talking about the 180 ebooks per 100 hardback books, but no actual sales numbers, so there is no way to say if they have 10%, 50% or 90% of the ebook sales market, which pretty much shoots down any "monopoly" conspiracy theory.

Besides, even if they were on the verge of controlling 90% of the market, so what? They got to where they are by being the best suited for the market, people choose to use them for their purchases. So rather than blame some unscrupulous business practices simply because they MIGHT have some majority in the market, blame the people that are spending their money at Amazon like you and me. We spent our money with them, we made them into the ebook giant they are today.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

I have every right to say no to a customer. Even if it's for a service I provide.

Not exactly.

You're not allowed to turn away a customer because he's gay, or Black, or because you think women shouldn't be allowed to drive, or because you refuse to do business with Catholics.

You're allowed to refuse to carry books that aren't within the theme of your store. You're not allowed to refuse to carry specific books because the the author is gay.

So far, no category of erotica is protected as a suspect class for discrimination, but it's possible that could change. And "the right to run my business as I like" doesn't include "the right to make agreements and then back out of them," nor "the right to imply that agreements have been made while the small print denies those agreements."

It's not unreasonable for authors to demand Amazon tell them what kind of content isn't permitted in their store, nor to demand what specific violation of the rules they've been bumped for. No, Amazon doesn't have to provide that info (AFIAK; maybe there's a lawsuit possibility there), but I've got no problem with backlash like "rate everything at Amazon a 1.0 for being willing to do business with those scumbags," or "place banners on your website about Amazon being run by bigots."

If Amazon is going to insist "we owe no explanations; this is the way we want to run our business," then the customers are free to insist "this is the way we want to react to your business practices."

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If Amazon is going to insist "we owe no explanations; this is the way we want to run our business," then the customers are free to insist "this is the way we want to react to your business practices."

That is it exactly. They have the right to refuse to sell something for almost any reason, just as we as consumers have every right to choose where we spend our money. Except for the $140 I paid for my Kindle, most everything else I plan to read will be calibre converted books I already own or free books such as from the Gutenberg Project.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Why do you keep trying to turn a moral argument into a legal one?

My response was to a comment suggesting that (public) schools and businesses were similar in nature, and they're not. There are legal requirements that necessarily make it so.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Schools and libraries can and do censor books.

Agreed. And they do so via a different mechanism than a business choosing whether to sell a title because it's legally required.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Censorship is an action whose definition is devoid of a judgement of right or wrong (about the action).

...but then you contradict yourself by saying:

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

I believe that there is good censorship, like when a parent keeps explicit material away from their child. Or a school doing the same thing. Or the FCC having requirements for shows using the public airwaves (though I take issue with some specific choices of theirs).

We keep things from kids because our societal understanding of right and wrong tells us we should do so. What's on MTV right now would have been considered borderline porn in the 50s and a good chunk of what's on broadcast TV would not have made the cut as recently as the '80s. So much for "devoid of a judgment of right or wrong". After all, it's only censorship if we disagree with it, right?

[Penforhire]

screwballl, I'm not saying they are "bad" when they become a defacto monopoly but you need to recognize we treat those differently, at least in America, and they have a greater responsibility to behave in a neutral fashion.

See what happened to Microsoft's Windows operating system and their browser as a good example. At no point in history were you actually forced to buy a Microsoft OS or not able to a different browser in some other OS, it was merely impractical for most of us.

So we can't just sit there and say "so what." We sit here and say, "clean up your act" when Amazon starts waving around a censorship stick.

[Fastolfe]

You know, at the end of the day, Amazon can't really censor anything at all. That's the beauty of our little hobby (ebooks): try to burn an ebook...

What I mean is, if you really, REALLY want to read incest porn, Mein Kampf, Catcher in the Rye or Uncle Tom's Cabin and your ebook retailer won't provide it, there's always a copy out there - legal or not. The beauty of the digital age is, once something is published on the net, there is no putting the cat back in the bag.

So the free speech side of things is taken care of. No need to resort to religious or Godwin arguments. What remains is:

- A commercial dispute between an author of incest porn and an ebook retailer,
- A commercial dispute between customers and the same ebook retailer.

In the end then, it's just a commercial dispute.

[JasonB]

@devilsadvocate and CleverClothe - The factual act of censorship itself has no value judgement. Either something has been censored or it hasn't. (I suppose whether something specific has or hasn't been could be up for debate.) The reasoning / intention behind the censorship can be arguably bad or good - or "not applicable" if you believe that such a thing as unintentional censorship can exist.

"After all, it's only censorship if we disagree with it, right?" No, I wouldn't say that. A lot of people think that censoring some things is a good thing, and agree with it. They don't believe that then means that there was no censorship.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

screwballl, I'm not saying they are "bad" when they become a defacto monopoly but you need to recognize we treat those differently, at least in America, and they have a greater responsibility to behave in a neutral fashion.

So we can't just sit there and say "so what." We sit here and say, "clean up your act" when Amazon starts waving around a censorship stick.

I understand that perspective of it. In the case of Microsoft, they made their business doing what it does well, but they were also caught doing illegal or at least unscrupulous things such as bullying OEMs to carry only Windows and drop linux. In the end, they still win and a few million paid out for legal fees is worth the added billions in forced sales their bullying caused. Even after their withdrawal of "bullish tactics", linux based computers from OEMs are still next to impossible to find these days because the OEMs are still afraid of the bully. Only now is the Google giant standing up and releasing their open source linux based Android OS. It takes one giant to fight another.

Relating to Amazon, if they choose to NOT carry a title, we have the right to go elsewhere. We have no right to force, demand or expect Amazon to carry any thing specific, they are allowed to carry or not carry what they want, they are allowed to censor whatever content they feel the need to and we cannot say jack squat about it outside of voicing opinions. But demanding they stop censoring in the name of "fairness" is communist practice, not an opinion.
Your local Christian bookstore can choose not to carry books on subject X, Y and Z, whereas Amazon may choose to not carry only Z. It doesn't matter if the business makes $10,000 per year or $100 million per year, the same freedom to run your business as you choose still applies.

They have NO responsibility to behave in a neutral fashion, thats the great thing about freedom of speech and freedom of running your own business. If you choose to not sell something or deal with specific subjects, you have every right to do so. Just as you have the right to state your opinion about it, that doesn't mean they will change their business practice.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Quote:
Agree to disagree on this, maybe?

Unfortunately, this solution leaves no room for righteous indignation.

It would also make for a very boring forum.