Comments on: Amazon excluding LGBT material from searches!

By: Pierre-Marc Paradis

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 02:44:49 +0000

What I believe is that Amazon has ONE homophobic employer that just got to make a lot shit and then the whole company has to pay for it. The point is they should just have been more open about saying Â« an error occured because of an employee and the whole team is sorryÂ» instead of Â« it’s just a glitchÂ». Okay, there is a possibility that it was really a mistake (those things do happen with computers) but since the books were mostly LGBT, sure was done on purpose. Anyway, let’s not make such a fuss over it. It’s not due to Amazon’s policy, we are not targeted by their team so there’s no need to go on with the whining.

Pierre-Marc Paradis<\/fb:name>','What I believe is that Amazon has ONE homophobic employer that just got to make a lot shit and then the whole company has to pay for it. The point is they should just have been more open about saying Ã�Â« an error occured because of an employee and the whole team is sorryÃ�Â» instead of Ã�Â« it\'s just a glitchÃ�Â». Okay, there is a possibility that it was really a mistake (those things do happen with computers) but since the books were mostly LGBT, sure was done on purpose. Anyway, let\'s not make such a fuss over it. It\'s not due to Amazon\'s policy, we are not targeted by their team so there\'s no need to go on with the whining.'); return false;">Quote

By: Khalin

Khalin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:27:59 +0000

There was another company besides amazon.com that did something like this, but I can't remember which one.

Quote

By: Alex Woolfson

Alex Woolfson — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:59:54 +0000

@Khalin –

Hey Khalin,

Nice to see you again. Yeah, at this point, I'm not too worried. Whether it was carelessness, foolishness or an honest mistake, they seem to have done the right thing and taken care of it quickly. And I imagine with the response that they received, they'll be a lot more careful in the future.

@Khalin<\/a> - \r \n\r \nHey Khalin,\r \n\r \nNice to see you again. :-) Yeah, at this point, I'm not too worried. Whether it was carelessness, foolishness or an honest mistake, they seem to have done the right thing and taken care of it quickly. And I imagine with the response that they received, they'll be a lot more careful in the future. '); return false;">Quote

By: Khalin

Khalin — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:13:35 +0000

Wow. Absolute bullshit. A site as respectable as amazon.com pulling something like this. I'm pretty disappointed and concerned about it. I hope it doesn't stem... "Adult material"? Give me a break.

Quote

By: Alex Woolfson

Alex Woolfson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:20:33 +0000

@ButterflyFomori –

I actually hadn't seen that (just woke up ::blush::) but it's a pretty good recap of what I've been seeing in the Twittersphere — and from Fox News no less! Thanks for sharing it.

And yes.. Ham-fisted… Mmmm… Ham….

@ButterflyFomori<\/a> - \r \n\r \nI actually hadn't seen that (just woke up ::blush::) but it's a pretty good recap of what I've been seeing in the Twittersphere -- and from Fox News no less! Thanks for sharing it. :-)\r \n\r \nAnd yes.. Ham-fisted... Mmmm... Ham.... '); return false;">Quote

By: ButterflyFomori

ButterflyFomori — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:52:32 +0000

@Alex Woolfson - *chuckle* "Ham-fisted." *chuckle* I did actually look up the meaning of that expression after reading your post, just to make sure my understanding was correct. *_^ *goes off to try and find opportunities to use IRL* Thanks for your posting - I always enjoy them. You've probably already seen this, since I am a notorious slow-draw with my media info gun...

@Alex Woolfson<\/a> - \r \n\r \n*chuckle* "Ham-fisted." *chuckle* I did actually look up the meaning of that expression after reading your post, just to make sure my understanding was correct. *_^ \r \n\r \n*goes off to try and find opportunities to use IRL* Thanks for your posting - I always enjoy them.\r \n\r \nYou've probably already seen this<\/a>, since I am a notorious slow-draw with my media info gun... '); return false;">Quote

By: Alex Woolfson

Alex Woolfson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:13:24 +0000

@rorsdors –

You're very welcome and I'm glad as well that they seem to be moving so quickly to restore the listings. And yes, I think the major takeaway from this is the awareness of just how important a site like Amazon has become– both as a resource and to our visibility. Let us hope they continue to use that power for good.

Thanks for commenting — and hope to see you here again soon!

@rorsdors<\/a> - \r \n\r \nYou're very welcome and I'm glad as well that they seem to be moving so quickly to restore the listings. And yes, I think the major takeaway from this is the awareness of just how important a site like Amazon has become-- both as a resource and<\/em> to our visibility. Let us hope they continue to use that power for good. ;-)\r \n\r \nThanks for commenting -- and hope to see you here again soon! :-D '); return false;">Quote

By: rorsdors

rorsdors — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:03:25 +0000
It was the main news over here in the U.K. Glad they backed down as they really are the only real internet book seller. Thanks for the heads up, it really is amazing how easily it would be to make gay invisible again.
Quote

By: Alex Woolfson

Alex Woolfson — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:28:07 +0000

@rorsdors –

Me, too, but I smell ham-handedness here vs. real malicious intent. My theory is that they got some complaints about "adult material" that they wanted to fix it quickly and whoever was in charge of coding the metadata filter just assumed that all LGBT material wouldn't be safe for kids. Back in the 80s and 90s nobody would have thought twice about that reasoning. What I find really heartening is the response across the Internet to it now – it's been huge. It's a great sign that the world is changing – that people are finally beginning to see gays and lesbians as worthy peers. As someone who grew up watching TV show after TV show get boycotted by fearful advertisers because of one gay kiss, this whole response fills my heart with joy.

EDIT (4/13 5:00 P.M.): And they even used the words "ham handed" in their email response to me! Could Amazon PR folks be Yaoi 911 comment readers?

@ButterflyFomori -

Yeah, as you can see from that other comment (and an email I received), not everyone has been affected. (Though, according to some accounts I read last night, it wasn't just the U.S. customers who weren't able to find the GLBT books.) And of course I wrote that post yesterday afternoon — I just got up and haven't had a chance to check the Intertubes yet, Hopefully, there's been some positive change on Amazon's part here!

But regardless, this does show the scary side of having a (mostly always) benevolent near-monopoly like Amazon — they don't need to actually ban books or stop selling them, all they have to do is not show them in searches to keep them from the majority of the public. Things for us to think about!

Thank you both for commenting!
@rorsdors<\/a> - \r \n\r \nMe, too, but I smell ham-handedness here vs. real malicious intent. My theory is that they got some complaints about "adult material" that they wanted to fix it quickly and whoever was in charge of coding the metadata filter just assumed<\/em> that all LGBT material wouldn't be safe for kids. Back in the 80s and 90s nobody would have thought twice about that reasoning. What I find really heartening is the response across the Internet to it now - it's been huge. It's a great sign that the world is changing - that people are finally beginning to see gays and lesbians as worthy peers. As someone who grew up watching TV show after TV show get boycotted by fearful advertisers because of one gay kiss, this whole response fills my heart with joy.\r \n\r \nEDIT (4\/13 5:00 P.M.): And they even used the words "ham handed" in their email response to me! Could Amazon PR folks be Yaoi 911 comment readers? ;-)\r \n<\/em>\r \n@ButterflyFomori<\/a> -\r \n\r \nYeah, as you can see from that other comment (and an email I received), not everyone has been affected. (Though, according to some accounts I read last night, it wasn't just the U.S. customers who weren't able to find the GLBT books.) And of course I wrote that post yesterday afternoon -- I just got up and haven't had a chance to check the Intertubes yet, Hopefully, there's been some positive change on Amazon's part here!\r \n\r \nBut regardless, this does show the scary side of having a (mostly always) benevolent near-monopoly like Amazon -- they don't need to actually ban books or stop selling them, all they have to do is not show them in searches to keep them from the majority of the public. Things for us to think about!\r \n\r \nThank you both for commenting! :-D '); return false;">Quote

By: ButterflyFomori

ButterflyFomori — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:19:11 +0000
@_@ *gaspu!* That is. . .ridiculous! I don't use Amazon.com, but I do use Amazon.ca. I checked all the books you mentioned, and they do still show up in my Amazon.ca searches - for now. I will complain though, because usually, what USA does, Canada is sure to imitate! Ah! Morality is such a highly individual thing and to censor (with inconsistent prejudice, even!) authors' ability to be 'known' is a terrible thing indeed!
Quote