4 ms·

Even More Amazon Censorship

19 points by Bud 16y ago

Bud 16y ago
It's not going to be a good world if Fox News is allowed to intimidate Amazon into censoring whatever it finds inappropriate. Not at all.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Amazon doesn't care what Fox News says, they're doing this because it makes good economic sense. More people will be angry at Amazon for them selling it than there will be those angered at its removal. So Risk > Reward. And anyways wouldn't Fox News be the one defending the guy? They seem to always take the tea party side which the author would almost certainly be on.
pragmatic 16y ago
I think we've gone a little crazy with the censorship word. This guy can print his book somewhere else and distribute it. Amazon (a private company) has decided they don't want these books on it's platform (for whatever reason). Now if the gov't said Amazon had to take these down, that's a problem. But that's not what happened.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  It seems the internet has gone crazy on entitlement recently.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    It's not entitlement. Now, hear me out. If I'm going to spend money somewhere, I'd like to know that the company I'm spending it with is acting in a way that I find ethical. In fact, I'd like to hold them to a higher standard, since it's so much easier for companies to have moral failings than it is people. > Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. - Wikipedia Amazon is acting as a censor. Now, it's not illegal. But I do find it to be distasteful. So I'd rather not support them. This article is one of a few lately that lets me know that Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way, and so I shouldn't patronize them anymore. Finally, it's incredibly important to hold these companies to a higher standard as they grow larger, because they become more and more influential. Most of my local bookstores have closed, and while there are other places to buy books online, I don't have the same relationship with them as I once did with Amazon. Now I'm in the process of checking out alternatives, but still: Amazon has become synonymous with "buying a book on the Internet."
    - coderdude 16y ago
      Talk about being melodramatic.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        The control of dissemination of information is one of the most important things there is, full stop. I am not being melodramatic.
    - CodeMage 16y ago
      Let me put it this way: let's say I own a chain of shops selling stuff for gardening and you want me to carry a product that consists of your turd in a plastic bag. No matter how much you insist it has its place in my fertilizer section, I'm not obliged to pick it up and sell it.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        No, I'm saying that if your company does something that I don't like, I'm not going to shop there. Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book because they think the content is in poor taste. And I am totally allowed to patronize someone else.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        coderdude 16y ago
        You change your tune depending on who you reply to. In one statement they're censoring books and controlling the dissemination of information. Here you're saying Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book, and that all that means is you won't shop there.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        There's a difference between legality and morality. Amazon is permitted by the rule of law to do this. I consider it immoral. Discriminating books based on content is the same thing as discriminating packets based on content.
- nopal 16y ago
  It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    "Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." It's not censorship.
    - nopal 16y ago
      I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
      - middlegeek 16y ago
        They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
        nopal 16y ago
        I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
        middlegeek 16y ago
        "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.
jbillingsley 16y ago
Now you can see why the government wants to privatize everything. If it's a private institution they can infringe upon your rights however they like.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  Upvoted. Corporations are regulated significantly less, and as they become more and more powerful, it becomes more important to pay attention to what they're doing. > Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism (EDIT: I do take small issue with 'governments wanting to privatize.' I don't think the government does at all. Other interests, yes. The point still stands.)
middlegeek 16y ago
This isn't censorship. They are not suppressing his speech, they are choosing not to disseminate it. Another thing, if the title of your book talks about raping someone, some people are going to find it offensive and some businesses are not going to want to put it on their shelves.
pmichaud 16y ago
Based on the titles alone I was tempted to side with Amazon on this, but if you read further, you find that these are novels that probably have redeeming value. I don't know about the quality of writing, but the content isn't any more pornographic than a romance novel or slasher flick.
- VMG 16y ago
  I think this is the subject of the discussion: http://www.buy.com/prod/how-to-rape-a-straight-guy/q/loc/106/207510301.html http://www.buy.com/prod/how-to-rape-a-straight-guy/q/loc/106... > Curt has been beaten, betrayed and brutalized by just about everyone he's known. And his mother - once a prostitute, now "born-again" and married - has banned him from the family. But six years in prison taught him a lot - including how to force straight cons to ejaculate as he rapes them, and how that can be a very satisfying method of revenge. Now he's out and trying to stay straight, but problems with his marriage and zero prospects of earning money enough to live on make that almost impossible. It's while he's hustling two gay men in a bar one afternoon that he mentions what he's done in prison. . .and the bet comes up.It seems the men, Wayne and Lenny, want a little revenge of their own against someone who's caused them trouble. If Curt can make this one "straight" guy "get off" while being assaulted, they'll give him a car, cash and a chance at a new life. Being in the mood to do some damage, Curt agrees and they start laying their plans. But step-by-step, Curt realizes things are getting out of control, and he has no one to pull him back from the abyss. And a stupid little bet is threatening to plunge him headlong into disaster.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
skymt 16y ago
I think the pedophile-guide incident has Amazon paranoid. Amazon has a huge task ahead of it in both shifting the publishing world to e-books and maintaining their lead in that market. They decided they can't afford negative publicity right now: unfortunate, but entirely understandable.
angrycoder 16y ago
> "How To Rape A Straight Guy" has a very provocative title, yes I would say it did its job of provoking then.
bambax 16y ago
It is censorship. It's not enough to say that "it's a private company, it should be left to do as it pleases" (as the counter-argument goes). In many other domains there are rules enforcing general principles, especially for private companies. Employment is one of them. A company cannot say "since, as a private company I should be free to make my own employment policies, I'll just engage in race discrimination". Just the same, the First amendment should be enforced for private companies. If your business is helping anyone publish content, then it should not be possible for you to filter out content or authors based on your own private rules/opinions. Anything that's legal is acceptable -- and the legality is decided by a court of law. I'm quite optimistic we'll get there eventually, but it'll take time and effort.

19 points by Bud 16y ago

Bud 16y ago

It's not going to be a good world if Fox News is allowed to intimidate Amazon into censoring whatever it finds inappropriate. Not at all.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Amazon doesn't care what Fox News says, they're doing this because it makes good economic sense. More people will be angry at Amazon for them selling it than there will be those angered at its removal. So Risk > Reward. And anyways wouldn't Fox News be the one defending the guy? They seem to always take the tea party side which the author would almost certainly be on.

pragmatic 16y ago

I think we've gone a little crazy with the censorship word. This guy can print his book somewhere else and distribute it. Amazon (a private company) has decided they don't want these books on it's platform (for whatever reason). Now if the gov't said Amazon had to take these down, that's a problem. But that's not what happened.

citricsquid 16y ago
It seems the internet has gone crazy on entitlement recently.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It's not entitlement. Now, hear me out. If I'm going to spend money somewhere, I'd like to know that the company I'm spending it with is acting in a way that I find ethical. In fact, I'd like to hold them to a higher standard, since it's so much easier for companies to have moral failings than it is people. > Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. - Wikipedia Amazon is acting as a censor. Now, it's not illegal. But I do find it to be distasteful. So I'd rather not support them. This article is one of a few lately that lets me know that Amazon and I are apparently looking at the world in a different way, and so I shouldn't patronize them anymore. Finally, it's incredibly important to hold these companies to a higher standard as they grow larger, because they become more and more influential. Most of my local bookstores have closed, and while there are other places to buy books online, I don't have the same relationship with them as I once did with Amazon. Now I'm in the process of checking out alternatives, but still: Amazon has become synonymous with "buying a book on the Internet."
  - coderdude 16y ago
    Talk about being melodramatic.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      The control of dissemination of information is one of the most important things there is, full stop. I am not being melodramatic.
  - CodeMage 16y ago
    Let me put it this way: let's say I own a chain of shops selling stuff for gardening and you want me to carry a product that consists of your turd in a plastic bag. No matter how much you insist it has its place in my fertilizer section, I'm not obliged to pick it up and sell it.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      No, I'm saying that if your company does something that I don't like, I'm not going to shop there. Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book because they think the content is in poor taste. And I am totally allowed to patronize someone else.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - coderdude 16y ago
        You change your tune depending on who you reply to. In one statement they're censoring books and controlling the dissemination of information. Here you're saying Amazon is totally allowed to not carry someone's book, and that all that means is you won't shop there.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        There's a difference between legality and morality. Amazon is permitted by the rule of law to do this. I consider it immoral. Discriminating books based on content is the same thing as discriminating packets based on content.
nopal 16y ago
It's still censorship, and some would prefer not to support businesses that arbitrarily censor speech.
- middlegeek 16y ago
  "Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." It's not censorship.
  - nopal 16y ago
    I read that before I posted. Amazon's the controlling body in this case. The controlling body need not have authority over the censored, e.g. media outlet. People have been complaining about Walmart censoring media for years. I don't see how this is any different.
    - middlegeek 16y ago
      They are a media outlet but it is not suppression. They are not stopping him from publishing that work and they are not stopping him from writing it. They are simply not taking part in the distribution.
      - nopal 16y ago
        I don't think we're going to agree on this, but one of the definitions of suppression is, "the act of withholding or withdrawing some book or writing from publication or circulation; 'a suppression of the newspaper'." Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation.
        middlegeek 16y ago
        "Amazon is withdrawing these items from circulation." They are not withdrawing it from circulation. THEY are choosing to not circulate it themselves. The author can circulate it where ever he likes as long as it is not Amazon. If Amazon was the only place that sold books I would be with you.

jbillingsley 16y ago

Now you can see why the government wants to privatize everything. If it's a private institution they can infringe upon your rights however they like.

steveklabnik 16y ago
Upvoted. Corporations are regulated significantly less, and as they become more and more powerful, it becomes more important to pay attention to what they're doing. > Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism (EDIT: I do take small issue with 'governments wanting to privatize.' I don't think the government does at all. Other interests, yes. The point still stands.)

middlegeek 16y ago

This isn't censorship. They are not suppressing his speech, they are choosing not to disseminate it. Another thing, if the title of your book talks about raping someone, some people are going to find it offensive and some businesses are not going to want to put it on their shelves.

pmichaud 16y ago

Based on the titles alone I was tempted to side with Amazon on this, but if you read further, you find that these are novels that probably have redeeming value. I don't know about the quality of writing, but the content isn't any more pornographic than a romance novel or slasher flick.

VMG 16y ago
I think this is the subject of the discussion: http://www.buy.com/prod/how-to-rape-a-straight-guy/q/loc/106/207510301.html http://www.buy.com/prod/how-to-rape-a-straight-guy/q/loc/106... > Curt has been beaten, betrayed and brutalized by just about everyone he's known. And his mother - once a prostitute, now "born-again" and married - has banned him from the family. But six years in prison taught him a lot - including how to force straight cons to ejaculate as he rapes them, and how that can be a very satisfying method of revenge. Now he's out and trying to stay straight, but problems with his marriage and zero prospects of earning money enough to live on make that almost impossible. It's while he's hustling two gay men in a bar one afternoon that he mentions what he's done in prison. . .and the bet comes up.It seems the men, Wayne and Lenny, want a little revenge of their own against someone who's caused them trouble. If Curt can make this one "straight" guy "get off" while being assaulted, they'll give him a car, cash and a chance at a new life. Being in the mood to do some damage, Curt agrees and they start laying their plans. But step-by-step, Curt realizes things are getting out of control, and he has no one to pull him back from the abyss. And a stupid little bet is threatening to plunge him headlong into disaster.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

skymt 16y ago

I think the pedophile-guide incident has Amazon paranoid. Amazon has a huge task ahead of it in both shifting the publishing world to e-books and maintaining their lead in that market. They decided they can't afford negative publicity right now: unfortunate, but entirely understandable.

angrycoder 16y ago

> "How To Rape A Straight Guy" has a very provocative title, yes I would say it did its job of provoking then.

bambax 16y ago

It is censorship. It's not enough to say that "it's a private company, it should be left to do as it pleases" (as the counter-argument goes). In many other domains there are rules enforcing general principles, especially for private companies. Employment is one of them. A company cannot say "since, as a private company I should be free to make my own employment policies, I'll just engage in race discrimination". Just the same, the First amendment should be enforced for private companies. If your business is helping anyone publish content, then it should not be possible for you to filter out content or authors based on your own private rules/opinions. Anything that's legal is acceptable -- and the legality is decided by a court of law. I'm quite optimistic we'll get there eventually, but it'll take time and effort.