Amazon censorship

[Penforhire]

The only reason this is interesting to me is that Amazon sits at the cusp of being a monopoly for e-books. No, they are not there yet but can't you see the probability right now? I do.

The argument flips like a switch if/when they become a monopoly. We might as well be talking about the government and it will be disturbing when our extreme-majority source of reading material is censoring what is available.

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then Amazon came for the Kindles and I didn't speak out, because I'm a Nook owner.

Just wait awhile, they'll get to you.
Because according to the Facebook Page dedicated to the issue Olympia Press (original publishers of Lolita) has had their entire catalog pulled from Barnes and Noble's PubIt.

I went to the BN website and ran a search and I couldn't find any of them.

If nothing else, the next time somebody wants to gasp in horror at me over stripping DRM and backing up my books - this is exactly why many people think it is important.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I am not a "sick predator," and I resent the slanderous implication that my choices in reading material make me one.

I've read and enjoyed Selena Kitt's works. Are you saying that means I'm a criminal, or a morally-reprehensible person who needs to be stopped? (If so, what actions do you think removing my access to books will prevent?)

Amazon can make any choice they want about what books they can carry, but (1) removing them from download is breach of contract; the info-page for Kindles states "All Kindle purchases from the Kindle Store are automatically backed up online at Amazon and available through your Archived Items on your Kindle or online at the Manage Your Kindle page. You can redownload content wirelessly for free, anytime."

and (2) refusing to tell authors & publishers what content they refuse to carry is a vile business practice, far more dangerous to society than providing kinky content to people who want to read it.

Please explain how a book about incest can be of any morally neutral value. Do you even understand the Godless position you are defending?

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

The only reason this is interesting to me is that Amazon sits at the cusp of being a monopoly for e-books. No, they are not there yet but can't you see the probability right now? I do.

The argument flips like a switch if/when they become a monopoly. We might as well be talking about the government and it will be disturbing when our extreme-majority source of reading material is censoring what is available.

If you go to Joe Konrath's blog there is an entry there and Selena Kitt has answered a few questions. She states that as of right now there are two projects in the writing stages which she'll be dropping because if she can't sell them on Amazon, it isn't worth her time. And right now since she can't get anybody from Amazon to even speak with her - she just has to make a guess on what she can and can't write.

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Please explain how a book about incest can be of any morally neutral value. Do you even understand the Godless position you are defending?

Ma'am, do you even understand that not everyone shares your superstition?

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Please explain how a book about incest can be of any morally neutral value. Do you even understand the Godless position you are defending?

Point #1. Some of the books involved are not about incest at all.

Point #2. Nearly all of the books involved are only about the consensual activities of adult participants. There was one I saw that was older teens - a 19yo and a 17yo that I understand that many would view that one differently.

Point #3. Every book involved is a fictional story. They are fantasy books. Pretend and real are different things and different rules apply to them. An extremely high percentage of people who engage in "Pretend Play" do not act upon those fantasies in real life. Just as most people who read Murder Mysteries do not murder, most people who read sexual fantasies keep it to the pages.

Point #4. For a vast part of the world - a "Godless Position" is just fine, as they do not subscribe to a God to dictate their moral positions.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

Ma'am, do you even understand that not everyone shares your superstition?

Sure I do, and I hope you find salvation through my Lord. My argument is that each and every one of us knows right and wrong, and I appreciate a corporation that chooses to err on the side of right. Freedom of speech and freedom from providing the means to excite wrong are not the same things.

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Sure I do, and I hope you find salvation through my Lord. My argument is that each and every one of us knows right and wrong, and I appreciate a corporation that chooses to err on the side of right. Freedom of speech and freedom from providing the means to excite wrong are not the same things.

And I hope that you wake up from your delusion and stop trying to dictate other people's behavior based on bronze age fantasies.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

And I hope that you wake up from your delusion and stop trying to dictate other people's behavior based on bronze age fantasies.

I am not dictating anything. Stop being so reactionary and think about what we are discussing. We are discussing the removal of what would probably be viewed as offensive by almost everyone, regardless of whether they ascribe to a "bronze age fantasy" or whatever they believe in.

[CWatkinsNash]

It's hard not to fall back on analogies to physical books, but ebooks are generally not "sold", they are licensed the same way that software is. That license can sometimes be revoked for a variety of reasons. Most people coming into the world of ebooks miss this distinction and the implications of it, but it's very important, especially when something like this happens and people are told they have no right to something they believe they own.

I generally like Amazon, which is one of the reasons I bought a Kindle, but since I don't necessarily trust "the cloud" in general I've made sure I have local accessible backup copies of anything I buy for my Kindle. (Read into that what you will.)

I don't see this situation as censorship, but I do think it's a crappy thing to do the way they are doing it. It seems reactionary, and I prefer companies to act with a little more stability than that. I agree that they can sell whatever they choose, but when you have a large base of customers that have bought into a seemingly closed system (the Kindle), removing access to things they've purchased without adequate communication makes Amazon look like they're pushing their weight around. Doesn't matter if it's technically accurate or not, the pitchforks will come out.

I don't read incest erotica, but I do read other things that some might find unseemly. If this is a case of people clicking the "report inappropriate content' link and Amazon reacting, that is indeed vile because it gives the power to the slacktivists (really, it's just a click) and takes it away from the person spending their hard earned money at Amazon. That would be less a matter of Amazon choosing to sell what it wants to and more a matter of giving in to those who would be in favor of real censorship.

Just my 2 cents.

CW

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

The only reason this is interesting to me is that Amazon sits at the cusp of being a monopoly for e-books. No, they are not there yet but can't you see the probability right now? I do.

I don't think they're anywhere near being a monopoly. Heck, they're not even a monopoly for Kindle books, unless they somehow were to block side-loading. How can anything Amazon does keep Kobo, B&N, Google, or any other Web site from making e-books available?

[rhadin]

tubemonkey has it right. Amazon's perniciousness is one reason why I avoid doing business with Amazon and why I prefer to spend more on a Sony Reader that gives me wider access to the ebook world.

The problem isn't, at least in my mind, that Amazon chooses not to sell a category of books. Rather the problem is the uneven enforcement of whatever nebulous policy the company is touting today. If incest is the problem (and it should be noted that the incest in the banned books was between consenting adults, not between an adult and an unconsenting minor -- at least according to the author), why doesn't Amazon also ban the bible? Remember the travails of Lot/ Lot was gotten drunk by his daughters who then had sex with him and then bore him children. I don't recall if the daughters were adults (i.e., older than 18 years) or minors, but it shouldn't matter if incest is the problem.

Imagine if Amazon had 90% or more of the ebook market and so could dictate to publishers like thus: "If you want your books to appear for sale on our website, you cannot sell any books we deem offensive anywhere. We will let you know what we deem offensive when we see it."

I don't happen to read the particular category of books that Amazon is trashing, I find them personally offensive, but Amazon does sell a lot of books that I think are offensive, including anything written by Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Of course, I also find Sarah Palin's books offensive because she abuses language, thereby setting a precedent for school children to demand that their illiterate writings be deemed Palinesque.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then Amazon came for the Kindles and I didn't speak out, because I'm a Nook owner.

Alas, then Amazon sent a virus out over the Internet to recall books it found offensive from all wireless ebook devices and I didn't speak out -- because the books I want to keep away from censors like Amazon I buy in print

Perhaps this is a conspiracy between publishers and Amazon to do away with ebooks and bring back pbooks.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I applaud Amazon, if this report is true, for removing material that can do nothing except fuel the fantasies of sick predators. Too many women and children are harmed by family members every day. Removing an offensive book is, in my opinion, a very responsible action by a company.

I guess your husband's book should be banned from Amazon and everywhere else because drug use and addiction among minors is a growing problem. We wouldn't want some stray sentence in his book to be seen as encouraging children to do drugs.

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Please explain how a book about incest can be of any morally neutral value. Do you even understand the Godless position you are defending?

Okay, I call Poe.

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Sure I do, and I hope you find salvation through my Lord. My argument is that each and every one of us knows right and wrong, and I appreciate a corporation that chooses to err on the side of right. Freedom of speech and freedom from providing the means to excite wrong are not the same things.

"Freedom of speech and freedom from providing the means to excite wrong are not the same things."

Actually, I'm afraid if you mean "freedom of speech does not extend to speech that might induce people to do evil" I must emphatically disagree.

It is precisely unpopular speech, including speech that some people see as possibly persuading others to do evil, that requires protection. Popular speech, on the other hand, doesn't need any protection because no one will try to ban it in the first place.