Amazon.com had deranked books containing lesbian/gay/bi/transgendered content because they are "adult". I didn't say LGBT erotica, mind you. ANY book that someone has complained about that has that subject matter in it is no longer popping up in "popular search terms" searches and top seller lists, as well as the "if you liked ____, you might like ____" suggestions, all of which helps to sell books, which is what Amazon is supposed to do. As one blogger pointed out, when doing a search for the term "homosexual," the first book that pops up is "A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.” Because that's not at all offensive. Another blogger writes "Amazon has deranked Annie Proulx, E.M. Forster, but not American Psycho. Mein Kampf and books about dog fighting are ranked and can be searched from the front page, but not books about gay love or books with erotic content." Yeah, I guess protecting customers from understanding gay people really IS more dangerous than turning them onto the preachings of Hitler.
Amazon has issued an apology for this "glitch" in their system. And that would be fine and all... if they didn't have books that go so far as to display nudity in a heterosexual context escaping their deranking glitch, and it hadn't been happening gradually over a week, if not more. They even deranked "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette, which won the 1992 National Book Award. When author Mark Probst was informed of his book being deranked a few days ago, Amazon responded with this lovely explanation (prior to the "glitch" excuse that managed to even keep the novel "Brokeback Mountain" from popping up in related searches):
In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.
Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.
Best regards,
Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage
Someone compiled a list of affected works here.
I don't buy the glitch. Call me a cynic, but that is way too convenient. I believe it's either something that Amazon does automatically when a book is tagged as being "adult" by their users (and I would bet, if this is the case, that it was done by the religious right), and they blindly apply the deranking system. Either that or there are people at Amazon who actually do think that anything discussing sexuality in any way that is not heterosexual is somehow "more adult". Either way, I am disgusted that this happened, and even more disgusted that they have yet to fully remedy this situation. I expect there to be a better response than "It's a glitch, we're trying to fix it" once this all ends. That is, of course, assuming they fix this revolting display of discrimination and censorship.
Until then, I shall adopt the new definition of "Amazon rank," as defined by Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, while boycotting Amazon. I encourage all of you who buy from there to do the same.
P.S. Why, exactly, is this less of a news story than Obama's new dog? Seriously, this country and our press piss me off so much sometimes.
Edited to add: More food for thought here. This is an interesting look at the books that were de-ranked and the categories they were listed under according to the publisher and Amazon. According to this posting, "It appears that all the content that was filtered out had either 'gay', 'lesbian', 'transgender', 'erotic' or 'sex' metadata categories. Playboy Centerfold books were categorized as “nude” and “erotic photography”, both categories that apparently weren’t included in the filter." And as for how long this has been happening, it appears that is has been going on since at least February. Here is author Craig Seymour's timeline of events when dealing with Amazon and its deranking of his book due to it's adult label.
I would like to further add that while I realize it seems like I am saying Amazon is full of bigots, I'm mostly talking about their response to the feedback about such books being deranked and their lack of effort in putting out an official statement or remedying the situation. That it had happened in the past and they issued a similar policy statement to two authors about why their books had been deranked is incredibly problematic, and the list of categories that seem to have a blanket-ban put on them is disturbing, as well. I'm not saying someone at Amazon hates gay people and did this in order to spread the hate; I think it's entirely possible that some people at Amazon made this decision in order to keep "offensive" material hidden. The notion that these categories could be seen as "offensive" and in need of censorship is also problematic, and smacks of idiocy rather than hatred. Here is a link that I think reflects my mindset pretty well.
And another thought is that this could be a result of trolling, which is potentially plausible (that is, the massive ban) but is still the fault of Amazon for having a system that allows censorship based on a system that is clearly easy to exploit.
UPDATE: By Tuesday, the day after I wrote this rant (not making a correlation, just giving a time line) Amazon has said this was "a ham-fisted cataloging error," and they say they are working to fix it. I am in the same boat as the people who are waiting to hear more about what they have to say about this situation. It's still really unclear. How it was possible for such a cataloging error to have occurred needs to be explained. And, as people who have worked for large corporations such as AOL have noted, this doesn't read as a technical glitch and I really do think that the "error" was more of a human kind rather than some programming issue.
I think one of the best points of view is being expressed by Christopher Rice in an interview over at Queerty. Essentially he said that a company like Amazon, a giant online megastore that has definitely hurt small book stores (and most homosexual-oriented bookstores are small), needed to have better PR about this and still does.
I mean you know, we already lost A Different Light in [West Hollywood, CA], several weeks ago and in no small part because of internet giants like Amazon. So, they need to stop acting like a drunken elephant and starting like a gentle giant. They need to recognize their influence and their size and they need to behave accordingly. I think there needed to be a much better P.R. campaign around this and there still needs to be greater clarity in their response.
Also, he begs the question of if this really was just a cataloging error, why did it all come to head this weekend? I mean, it HAD been happening before this. It's just that suddenly it all hit on Sunday (Easter Sunday, no less, which has definitely fueled some rumours of Amazon's intentions). I am glad they recognized the error and are working to fix it, but I need to see how far the fixing goes, and I think they need to be more open about this "adult content" policy, as well as this error that could allow for such a thing to happen.
So, not full-on ragefest anymore, but I'm still simmering. I really, really don't like the censorship aspect that was brought up during this whole ordeal. I mean, please, for the love of God, get rid of Ron Jeremy's autobiography if you're going to censor things.
Posts
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteI dislike when companies do this sort of stuff, because I usually end up writing a terse letter explaining why I won't continue to purchase products from them.
In this case however, I'm going to take a "wait and see" approach. The exact quote I found was this:
"'Essentially, there's a glitch in our system and it's being fixed,' Amazon spokesperson Patty Smith told CNET News."
The key word there is "essentially." I'm not sure how their system works, but you've portrayed it as relying partially on user input. If that's the case, then it's possible for the results to be affected without wrongdoing on the part of the company. Rather than make decisions based on the mistake, I'm going to judge Amazon on their recognition of and solution to the problem.
And this is where the cynic comes in. That this had been going on for a week without review is appalling. That they have a system in place that allows for such a thing to happen, at all, is even more so. And a one-line excuse of "it's a glitch" that they seem unable to fix, regardless of the lists that have been released of items that clearly should NOT have been removed, only shows me that it's less of a "glitch" and more of them doing something ridiculous as a business practice. If their system is how I portrayed it, then it's not a glitch. A glitch is a computer error. This is not what the situation is. They didn't offer an apology and they are dragging their feet with the remedy. Again, your willingness to trust in others when they do wrong baffles me. I guess you'll be the happier one in life. For me, I'm not giving one bit until they issue a full apology and this is completely fixed.
ReplyDeleteWell as far as them not finding it, their product database is huge. While it's nice to have scripting in place that can monitor changes to product rankings and identify unusual trends, I wouldn't punish a company for not doing it. Having worked with vastly smaller databases, I can say that sometimes you don't catch problems quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I posted that quote was to focus on the use of the word "essentially." Essentially as in "not really a glitch, but kind of." A true glitch would be, as you stated, some kind of computing error. However, if the unforeseen issue was customers knowingly flagging LBGT material as "adult," then that would fall under the category of "pseudo-glitch," meaning it's a problem in how the system is being used.
Yes I am being trusting here, but it's because there is a very plausible explanation for how this could've happened without Amazon knowingly trying to discriminate. Not every corporation is evil; I think they deserve more than one day to properly address the issue. I certainly support sending emails to demonstrate interest in this matter but not a boycott just yet.
I'm afraid I'm far too addicted to Amazon.com to ween myself off of their competitive prices for any length of time.
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern for what appears to be a hit job on homosexual literature (and not a very thorough one), but I feel like it should make you glad that this has sparked outrage, and even that it made you mad enough to write this piece.
But I find it hard to generate much vitriol when an issue affecting the homosexual community as small as this one is flagged by our larger society and remedial social action is demanded--all this shows me is what I've firmly believed since high school: the only people that still hate homosexuals are old people that will soon die, and religious followers who have seen their political power greatly diminished since the days of good ol' shrub (that would be Bush II, for those of you unfamiliar with the joke). I am unfazed by either group--I am younger than old people and even when shrub was in power, the religious right got little of what it wanted.
I trust that those that feel the need to take affirmative action against the homosexual community are in such a minority that all I need to do is wait until I am 50, when my generation will be firmly in charge of the country, and pass a few laws.
God bless America ;)
To Serryl:
ReplyDeleteYou're missing a big part of the picture. One part is that they are CENSORING their selections. I'm sorry, but I am 100% against this. It's also not done in a sophisticated manner. I mean, any idiot who is updating their database could see that a book of Playboy Bunny Centerfolds is an adult item. But they are leaving it up to users? That is flawed beyond all getup. And people DID complain to them. I showed you what that author received when his book was marked as "adult". It's not like it suddenly popped up. Amazon, in my opinion, is much more to blame than you are implying. They were allowing this to happen, and only when a lot came down all at once did shit hit the fan and they were caused some trouble. It's not even "essentially" a glitch. It's an incompetent system that shouldn't exist in the first place.
To J. Trein: I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think it's too easy for this stuff to be passed onto children. I know it takes baby steps, but allowing for these things to happen only empowers the view of the "older generation" that is largely promoting this sort of hatred. Amazon's brush-off of people like Mark Probst is part of what infuriates me. And how they have barely commented on this whole ordeal at all and passed it off as "essentially a glitch" is disingenuous and not right. So many of these titles should have been returned by now. There are lists published that are being linked and relinked all over the internet. People have contacted Amazon about THEIR books. It's not so much that I think Amazon is full of bigots, it's about how they handled this whole ordeal throughout the week. It took a massive shitstorm for them to actually pay attention. They made a system that was easily exploited, a group of people were being discriminated against, and they didn't care until it became a headline.
I have to trust that this was an oversight on Amazon's part--why give up money when you don't have to?
ReplyDeleteIt also makes little sense to argue that Amazon did this on purpose in an attempt to reach out to a more conservative audience--Amazon has the widest selection of dildos and far more unmentionable things than I am aware of. And while those things were indeed likely already marked as "adult" or however Amazon does it, I think my point stands.
Upon thinking about this, even if this was the fault of the customer base "manipulating" (also known as "using") the adult-content flagging system, so what? If enough people want to get together and force Amazon to brand homosexual literature as inferior in some manner because they feel it's the right thing to do, who am I to say that this is wrong? We can talk about human rights all we want, but I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that this particular issue is overly important.
I, along with most people in my generation, simply don't care about who is gay and who is not. But aren't we attempting to strong arm Amazon into doing what we want them to? It's a private company, so even if this was a corporate decision, I fail to see how it is anything other than a minor business decision. I can go online right now and purchase a t-shirt emblazoned with "God Hates Fags", for example, and while this makes me question the sanity of the site's owner, it has no ultimate bearing in my life or in our culture's future. This is the cultural detritus created by the last gasp of a long-nursed but very ill prejudice, and I for one am content to let it run its course. It's a joke. It'll never get anywhere. And I trust in that.
You can try to get whipped into a frenzy, concerned about how hate gets passed down and all that, but I have more faith in this country than that. Attitudes are changing and have, in fact, already changed. Things will get better--just take a breath and wait.
As an aside, while hate certainly comes from the parents, this misses the point that hate is bred by ignorance. Poor, uneducated people who have little contact with minorities (whether sexual or racial) tend to have distorted perceptions of these groups of people. Bringing these communities out of their hole with better education and social services will do more to ameliorate the lineal legacy of prejudice than will attacking the problem head on. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
To J. Trein:
ReplyDeleteI don't have that kind of faith in this country. Watching state after state pass same-sex only marriage laws and such kinda kills that part of me. And I don't agree with a system that allows for censorship of book sales. Amazon is supposed to PROMOTE the sale of books, not hinder it.
I added a couple of links and such to my initial post to flesh out more of why I feel so strongly about this and why I don't think it's a simple goof on Amazon's part. They issued two statements about this "policy," and I am sure they do derank things according to that policy. But if the whole thing was simply because a group of people decided to spam Amazon with complaints about these books (and I would think that would be VERY hard to do since it seems to involve certain categories), Amazon is still at fault for brushing off the problem AND for allowing such a system to exist. And you know how I get about censorship and freedom of speech and all that jazz.
Thanks for the additional info, especially the timeline of events. I can agree now that this has been mishandled by the company, and I've sent them an email indicating that I'd like them to be transparent about what is and isn't "adult." Considering that we still don't have a clear way of distinguishing art from pornography, I think Amazon will quickly throw out this whole concept.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Mr. Seymour's issue miraculously resolved itself by the end of February, it's irresponsible and wrong for Amazon to have not addressed this for over a month. On that we can agree
First, Amazon can do whatever it likes with its collection of books. It does not need to promote anything should it choose not to. If it wants to hide gay literature in an out-of-the-way spot on the interwebs, fine. You can still find it by author or title. What a loss of freedom of speech, huh? And I for one have NEVER bought a book, or anything else on Amazon for that matter, based upon the "You Might Also Like" suggestions, or whatever this affects. If Amazon continues to degayify itself, at some point even loyal consumers like me will begin shopping elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if one were to boycott businesses you morally disagreed with, I'm sorry to tell you that you wouldn't be left with much to purchase.
Secondly, I am again unfazed by states hating on gay marriage. My point again--who cares? Bigoted legislators are on their way out the door as we speak, the Republican party is having a crisis of political faith of stupendous magnitude, and homosexuals are more accepted every passing year.
Iowa, a midwest state that one would assume to be conservative, recently judicially struck down the state ban on gay marriage. And in an even more shocking move, Vermont became the first State in the Union to recognize gay marriage through its legislature.
By not recognizing the gains (by leaps and bounds!) we have made, we do nothing but give credence to the fearmongering and scare tactics that the Republicans employed for the last eight years. I remember how unhappy we all were over that, and I refuse to give these bigots more power by imagining, even for one second, that they have a chance in hell of succeeding. Their day is over, and history will paint them in much the same light as groups that pushed for the Black Codes (Jim Crow laws, etc.). Which is to say, not well ;)
Progress, how sweet it is.
To J. Trein:
ReplyDeleteJust because you haven't bought anything based on their recommendations doesn't make you the majority. I know, it's shocking.
As for leaps and gains, I laugh at you for that. Sure, 4 states allow same-sex marriage now, but too many ban it. And Iowa is actually not considered conservative. It's considered pretty liberal, especially for a Midwestern state. And Vermont was no shock. I also love that you don't care because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. It doesn't affect me either, but neither does white-only segregation. It's a great way to look at things. "Gee, it doesn't affect me, so who cares?" You know what? I know a lot of people who are gay who DO care, very much, about their limited rights, and it's people like you who don't want to take their rights away but who shrug their shoulders and say "so what" that help keep this bigotry going strong. You see these laws and you don't give a damn. You see injustice and you ask "so what?" So, you can wait for history, but I intend to help make it happen. Even if it's small things like making the few people who read this blog aware of some small injustice, it's part of what I do to show that I am not OK with this. It may not affect me and my daily life, but there's no reason for these unconstitutional laws to be in place anyway, and I'm not keen on just sitting around waiting for others to realize it's not OK, as well. That's the worst thing one can do in this country, in my opinion.
Their day is not over because these laws were passed recently and most of them are still here. Hopefully the few states that have overturned their laws will lead the way for more outcomes of a similar nature, but my faith went out the door with Prop 8. California is one of the most liberal states, and it banned gay marriage. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me that it's only old folk voting for this stuff. I have spoken to enough young people who feel just as strongly about being anti-gay marriage to feel this loss of faith. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I'm afraid that no amount of telling me "this, too, shall pass" is going to make me feel any better about any of this, or look the other way when I see prejudice, or shrug it off. It's one of the things that fills me with passion, and I won't turn away from it just because people like you deem it to be "temporary". The only reason why these things are temporary is because people who feel strongly about it speak up. And that is what I intend to do.
I do not claim that my experience is typical, I only offered as explanatory. I didn't intend to prove anything by it, and put no weight on it. The point stands that Amazon could do whatever it wanted it with its ranking systems.
ReplyDeleteYou misconstrue my argument--I DO care, I just think that the problem is taking care of itself, as evidenced by the response to this Amazon debacle, and our slowly but surely expanding societal circle of respect.
I do not look the other way when I encounter prejudice, but how effective can any argument hope to be when, as you pointed out, half of liberal California feels gay marriage is beyond the pale? Is it even prejudice at that point? That feels more like a desire to make it into prejudice rather than it actually being so, because I believe defining something as prejudice requires the characteristic being used for discrimination to be thought of as invalid for that purpose by a sufficient number of people. The only reason racism is no longer tolerated is because a sufficient majority of people no longer see race as a valid way of characterizing an individual. I see this homosexual angst going the same way. In my opinion deep prejudice doesn't change, it only dies along with the person holding it.
As for not attempting to put my opinions into action and strengthen the gay community, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. I feel like my quiet acceptance of homosexuals is what will ultimately win the day, not high profile law suits that serve only to agitate those that hold a low opinion of sodomites. Prop 8 would likely never have hit the books if it weren't for that fateful California Supreme Court decision which, truth be told, the homosexual community was advised to NOT pursue. The lawyers and scholars the team worked with said that forcing the issue, even if the gays carried the day, would do more harm than good. You can call this 20/20 hindsight, but I look at this as a group of people looking for more acceptance than society is ready to give them. That level of acceptance is not up to me, nor any of my similarly well-educated ivory tower-bound classmates. It's up to society at large, and all those people who never make it through high school, let alone past it.
This is my underlying assumption: rights cannot be created or vindicated through the court system, nor rammed through the legislature, unless and until society is ready to accept them. California showed that we are not, but that we are getting closer. Any party that wants to can pick up this fight, I for one choose not to join them as of this point in time.
I think it's drastically different to try and push gay marriage through than to try and remove an unconstitutional law. I didn't like the push for legalizing gay marriage for the exact reasons you said. I blame that push for the state marriage laws being passed. But the laws that were passed ARE discriminatory and unconstitutional. So, yeah, that's when my "quiet acceptance" no longer stays quiet.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for this debacle, seeing a major company block things like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Brokeback Mountain from people is just appalling, not only because of discriminatory issues but also because of censorship. Would they remove Catcher In The Rye from their search just because people complained about it? I HIGHLY doubt it. I am pretty sure their system has some amount of oversight, or else we'd probably have a group of trolls complaining against the Bible and getting it removed. My outrage isn't only about the fact that certain kinds of groups were targeted, and those groups happen to be discriminated against very often in the states. It was also about censorship.
When the Civil Rights movement occurred, a lot of people were NOT ready for it. It came from fighting for equality. It didn't happen passively. And it came from overturning unconstitutional laws. I'm not pushing for gay marriage because I don't think that needs to be fought right now. I'm pushing for the removal of unconstitutional laws. Right now those two things kinda go hand-in-hand, but I'm not fighting for what Vermont did. Not that I am against legalizing gay marriage, it's just that I don't think the nation is ready for it to be legalized, yet. And yes, that does make me sad.
My understanding of the Civil Right Movement is that it had little legal traction, even with all the victories by the NAACP, until the US Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. We can debate the reasons as to why this happened when it did, but I think it comes down to the fact that enough people were fed up with racism, and enough people were willing to pick up a shovel and dig our way through it. I agree with you that this nation, as a whole, is not ready for gay marriage. It will be one day, but not today.
ReplyDeleteWhen that day comes, though, it will be through a federal mandate, which will defeat the ability of the more backwards States to respond. There will be no more discussions about what is or isn't a discriminatory/unconstitutional law directed against homosexuals. Homosexuality will no longer be a valid distinction to draw in our laws, and it simply won't be done anymore.
As for the laws currently being unconstitutional when the States pass them, I don't know if I believe that. I am very much a legal realist, and believe that if a State not only doesn't give you a right, but affirmatively takes it away, then you don't have that right. It makes no difference how upset we get over it--until and unless the State returns that right to us, we don't have it. So if a State wants to ban gay marriage, then it's hard for me to say, what with the level of disagreement right now, anyways, that such laws are categorically "unconstitutional." The State constitution is what the people say it is, to a large degree.
And as for sitting on my hands, content to wait history out, I can't deny that. I feel like history has show a progressive liberal trend, and there is little to stop that in the US, at least for long. So am I against progress? No. Am I unwilling to work for it? No. I just more willing to view this struggle as a long one, one that might not even be won by the time I am dead and gone. But you and I can lay the groundwork for that day while we are here, and that's all we can hope to do.
I disagree with you about what is "unconstitutional" in terms of the federal constitution. I believe these laws are unconstitutional on that ground, not on state constitutional levels. I believe state constitutions are not allowed to violate the federal constitution, so, I think that takes care of itself. I don't really get how that makes no sense in terms of equality, and I also don't understand how any of this makes sense when you take religion out of it. Since the people in charge haven't been doing what they should be doing by separating church and state, this whole thing is one giant bloody mess.
ReplyDeleteSome of the biggest breaks in the Civil Rights movement came with fighting laws. I mean, sure, a lot of the boycotting and such wasn't making laws, but one of the biggest thresholds was crossed over with Brown v. Board of Education. Wanting to see something similar happen in terms of homosexual rights isn't really that uncalled for. Not only that, but to say that they don't deserve to have these rights because the law says so is unreal to me. We are supposed to be protected by the constitution. All of us. We're supposed to be equal, and to not be discriminated against for choices that do not harm others (this is so I am covering my ass if you want to bring up criminals and their lack of rights). I will never subscribe to the view that people do not have rights if laws are made to take away rights they SHOULD have. I look to the constitution first. Laws get passed that shouldn't, and are later overturned because they were WRONG. It doesn't mean that the people who were oppressed rightfully shouldn't have had those rights taken from them just because law said so. It was an unlawful law. I like to fight against those.
And I agree with your last paragraph.
Also, posting an update in my original post.
ReplyDelete