Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[meeera]

A particular set of authors has already doxxed at least one reviewer and published information on where she and her family hung out IRL and could be found.

That's the sort of behaviour some reviewers are sharing, in the hope that future potential readers might avoid interacting with or posting a negative review on books with authors who behave that way.

None of this is in any way comparable to a lynch mob. There's really no need to co-opt a violent racist past (or mostly-past) in order to talk about this sort of non-racist behaviour.

[latepaul]

Excuse my ignorance but what is 'doxxed'?

[DiapDealer]

Keeping lists of books/authors you want to avoid reading seems silly enough to me. Keeping lists of books/authors you'd encourage others to avoid seems downright presumptuous.

[meeera]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/doxing

Searching out and tracking down as much personal information about a person as possible, then publishing it, in order to harass and intimidate them.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Keeping lists of books/authors you want to avoid reading seems silly enough to me. Keeping lists of books/authors you'd encourage others to avoid seems downright presumptuous.

What does it presume?

In the particular case that triggered off all of this, it wasn't "people to avoid reading because they write badly", it was "people to consider avoiding posting negative reviews on because they have a history of stalking reviewers and encouraging others to harass them and their family". It all snowballed outwards from there.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Keeping lists of books/authors you want to avoid reading seems silly enough to me.

There are some authors I like a lot but some of their books aren't my taste. Anytime I checked these author's books, I finished checking the same books over and over. Now they're in my "Not my taste" list, so I can skip them next time.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I guess we see the situation differently. You see this measure as a result of readers banding together to hound an author, but from the comments on Goodreads it seems to me like it was the other way around.

Can go both ways. An author has "fans" that can operate in almost precisely the same way as "anti-fans". Just enhances the point as far as I can see. Regardless from which direction the attack comes, it still pretty much looks the same - at least from my perspective.

[Ravensknight]

I've seen a lot of comments here about how great this is, etc, etc. Each to their own I guess.

What I haven't seen is any discussion on the fact that there has been NO change in the TOS for GR members to agree to, only an announcement. And that immediately after that announcement Reviews and Shelves were deleted with no warning, no time to comply with the new guidelines, nothing.

And the fact that this is a MAJOR policy change for GR. The powers that be on GR have maintained, staunchly, that shelves were for us the readers. We were also reassured, ad naseum, after the Amazon buyout, that our reviews were indeed ours and would not be deleted without reason.

So while many commenters here see this as "a tempest in a teapot", for those of us who are/were heavily invested in GR, this is truly a tempest.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

I've seen a lot of comments here about how great this is, etc, etc. Each to their own I guess.

What I haven't seen is any discussion on the fact that there has been NO change in the TOS for GR members to agree to, only an announcement. And that immediately after that announcement Reviews and Shelves were deleted with no warning, no time to comply with the new guidelines, nothing.

And the fact that this is a MAJOR policy change for GR. The powers that be on GR have maintained, staunchly, that shelves were for us the readers. We were also reassured, ad naseum, after the Amazon buyout, that our reviews were indeed ours and would not be deleted without reason.

So while many commenters here see this as "a tempest in a teapot", for those of us who are/were heavily invested in GR, this is truly a tempest.

That seams the right thing to do, keep things about the the books, let personal fight take place somewhere else.

They could have given some warning though.

[Rumpelteazer]

I can understand GR want to do something about the bad behaviour of both readers and authors. How they've gone about it, though, I don't agree with.

The deletion of shelves and reviews with only a notification after it has been done is incredibly disrespectful. People should get a chance to change or delete "offensive" reviews, at least a week in my opinion.

According to GR, up until Friday, shelves were for users and should stay that way. I have a shelf "not for me" to remind me that I don't want to read certain authors, for whatever reason. I've read that people got their "due to author" shelf deleted because it is offensive. How!? Due to author, for me, could mean because of behaviour or views but also because of writing style or themes.

I also think discussion of authors' behaviour and views should be possible if that discussion is inoffensive; no threatening and "I wish he would die" or sharing of personal information.

Also, announcing the changes in a group many that many people don't read is silly. They should have put it not only on their blog, but send out an email informing people of the change and put in in a banner at the top of every page.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually they describe themselves on their blog as:

and on Twitter as:

Fair enough. Doesn't say it's for slagging people off either way.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by meeera

A particular set of authors has already doxxed at least one reviewer and published information on where she and her family hung out IRL and could be found.

That's the sort of behaviour some reviewers are sharing, in the hope that future potential readers might avoid interacting with or posting a negative review on books with authors who behave that way.

None of this is in any way comparable to a lynch mob. There's really no need to co-opt a violent racist past (or mostly-past) in order to talk about this sort of non-racist behaviour.

Not sure if they were called a lynch mob or not, but it brings to mind all the villagers with their pitchforks chasing Frankenstein's monster.

But what use is a review/book recommendation site if people are put off leaving negative reviews if they think that's what the book deserves? A lot of writers are mentally unhinged in some way, that's why they write. Doesn't mean they will always lash out, more than likely it would just be their first negative review that makes them do that.

Anyway, without the change what would have stopped a writer from putting themselves on such a list just so they will only get positive reviews?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by caleb72

Can go both ways. An author has "fans" that can operate in almost precisely the same way as "anti-fans". Just enhances the point as far as I can see. Regardless from which direction the attack comes, it still pretty much looks the same - at least from my perspective.

It looks the same to you because you are only looking at "fans" and "anti-fans" which operate under the same rules. But you are ignoring the authors themselves in this.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Fair enough. Doesn't say it's for slagging people off either way.

Depends on your point of view. If authors feel insulted when their book is criticized...

[Julius Caesar]

Speaking about author's behavior, a lady wrote a biography of a rising general, said very flattering complement about him, only later we found out that she is his mistress. http://www.amazon.com/All-In-Educati...DateDescending

Some of the reviews from Nov 2012 onward contain very negative and sarcastic comments about the author's behavior but the reviews stay.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The problem is that people on the internet often reward one another for thinking alike. This can create the illusion that any sort of consensus is right.

Most of us understand that a physical lynch mob is a bad thing. What some of us do not understand is that banding together to hound a person we dislike until they become unemployed or unhinged is merely another kind of lynch mob.

I'm always amazed at the people who rejoice on Yelp whenever a small business owner whose attitude they dislike goes under. If you don't care for a waiter or restaurant manager, then why not go elsewhere? Why try to destroy the livelihood of everyone involved with that restaurant because one of its employees annoyed you once? The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the crime.

It's the same with authors, isn't it? If they don't connect with you, why not find different authors and let that person who annoyed you connect with someone else? Why keep a public list of of the ones you hate, hoping to build a consensus? A well-written review which reads the work closely and finds it wanting is condemnation enough.

Of course, I can understand how anyone would be upset losing shelves they'd spent seven years building. The total erasure of anything seems sad. If only sites had the time to keep copies the work they deleted massively.

ITA with your entire post.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Keeping lists of books/authors you want to avoid reading seems silly enough to me. Keeping lists of books/authors you'd encourage others to avoid seems downright presumptuous.

Again, ITA.

Originally Posted by meeera

A particular set of authors has already doxxed at least one reviewer and published information on where she and her family hung out IRL and could be found.

That's the sort of behaviour some reviewers are sharing, in the hope that future potential readers might avoid interacting with or posting a negative review on books with authors who behave that way.

None of this is in any way comparable to a lynch mob. There's really no need to co-opt a violent racist past (or mostly-past) in order to talk about this sort of non-racist behaviour.

If an author is behaving badly, then I think a person has a right to say so on her own personal blog. However, I don't think it has a place on GR. Also, from what I've seen on GR, harassment and bad behavior occurs among both readers and authors and honestly more so among readers.