Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Amazon Fail: Clarification Previous entry: Unicorn Nuts…On Your Face

Amazon Fail: A Follow-Up

Books

Well, the hopes that Amazon was just an innocent victim of a bantown event or right wing complaint campaign have been shot to hell.  The company released an official statement about deranking nearly 58,000 titles that had feminist, LGBT, or sex-positive* titles, and unfortunately, it’s not satisfactory and indicates that the deranking was, in fact, intentional-ish:

“This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error,” Drew Herdener, spokesman for the online retailer, wrote in a statement.

“It has been misreported that the issue was limited to gay- and lesbian-themed titles,” he said. “In fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as health, mind and body, reproductive and sexual medicine, and erotica.”

Don’t lie to us, dude.  Yes, the books were in those categories, but there was a thick political difference between who got dinged and who didn’t.  Heather Corinna’s teen sex ed book got hit with a de-ranking, but a bunch of abstinence and sex-negative books are still ranked.  “Heather Has Two Mommies” somehow got hit for being “adult”, but books on preventing your kid from being gay weren’t.  The pregnancy and dating guides that got hit were gay-centered, but similar books aimed at straight people were spared.  Feminist titles like “Full Frontal Feminism” and “The Means of Reproduction” got deranked, and these are predominantly political books.  #amazonfail may be slowing down, but mostly because people suspect the problem was fixed.  But even if Amazon didn’t intend for their policy to be ham-fisted, somehow they bought right into the assumption that liberal views on LGBT issues and female sexuality are more suspect than more conservative ones.


Heather agrees with my suspicion:

And how a machine or an errant finger would discern between supportive books about homosexuality and books against homosexuality is a head-scratcher. If it was merely about tagging, then all books tagged with “gay” should have been de-ranked, not just certain kinds of books. If it was merely about material considered “adult,” why were young adult books such as mine affected, along with many reference books and literary classics, when Playboy: The Complete Centrefolds was not?

Why was this policy put in place?  Brooke Warner of Seal Press dogged Amazon on this issue, and got this response:

Basically he said that amazon has been experimenting with the way they dole out content specifically so that people who are searching Harry Potter or whatever won’t run into links to products that might be offensive.

...It’s super fucked up, but apparently he’s saying that Amazon is a bully when it comes to stuff like this and it’s all about sales for them and it’s not about censorship. [He said t]hat they love you, love Seal, but that this is mandated from their bosses, who essentially want to be Walmart.

That said, Amazon is a big company and not everyone knows what the decisions at the top are.  But even though it’s actually a bad business decision on its face to pander to “family friendliness” like this, it does make a rough sort of sense.  Yes, Amazon is a big company is liberal Seattle and no doubt their executives are as infected with big city liberal attitudes about Teh Sexx as the rest of us, they probably buy right into the same bullshit as mainstream media bigwigs do about what the Average American Asshole Customer wants, and they’ll go out of their way to pander to the dickweeds of the world at the expense of majority of their actual customers, who are adults and act like adults.  Even a lot of conservative and homophobic customers, probably most, aren’t going to suck an entire wad of Hanes up their asses if they do a search for a book about human sexuality and have to browse past the pro-gay and pro-feminist ones to get to “How To Lie To Stupid Bitches Until They Suck Your Cock”, or whatever the It manual of assholery is right now.  And even the customers who do think the world should pander to their prejudices are ashamed of being such babies, and they hide behind actual babies when expressing these opinions.  The Harry Potter thing is about implying that Amazon should be child-safe.  Which means wingnut emotional child-safe, because a) children that really are too young to see even the covers of sexually explicit materials don’t have credit cards and b) the materials that got tagged weren’t sexually explicit so much as liberally explicit.

The problem really goes back, regardless of how this happened, to the danger in putting up an “adult” wall that could be misused in this way.  Even by accident.  It’s important to keep in mind that feminists and LGBT folks are the first people who get hammered when this sort of censorship mechanism is put into place.  Once the wall is in place, it takes a lot of effort to police it to make sure this doesn’t happen.  Consider, for instance, how Playboy and biographies of porn stars didn’t get hammered.  Why not?  Straight porn is so mainstreamed now that their own publishers don’t feel the need to label these materials pornographic.  But people get easily alarmed by anything gay, which is assumed sexual even when it’s not.  This affects tagging, and is the reason this happened.

Amazon needs to go above and beyond the usual spin machine, dismissive nonsense on this one.  Why?  Because the people attacked are the sort of people that are always under attack, and we’re a tad touchy as a group.  We have a right to be—-the deliberate abuses outnumber the honest mistakes 5 to 1 when aimed at gay people and feminists (and disabled people and depressed teens, to name two other groups who saw books about their concerns de-ranked), and that context means that people are going to need a little something extra if we’re going to believe you.  And now that it’s been made pretty damn obvious that Amazon did in fact intend to give certain books demerits for being left-leaning and inclusive, they need to think even harder about how bad this is.

I’m disappointed.  I’ve always been pretty happy with Amazon. Yes, it hurts local bookstores, and I feel bad about that.  On the other hand, I can’t deny that the internet makes providing a better service much easier—-books are a thousand times more likely to be in stock, and you don’t have to drive anywhere to get your books.  For people living in non-urban areas, online book stores give them access to entire swaths of reading material they may not otherwise even know existed. These are legitimate customer needs that Amazon meets.  But I admit I liked them specifically because they seemed so apolitical.  In the brick and mortar world, your options were explicitly liberal-leaning bookstores, or crappy bookstores with hefty amounts of non-moving right wing stock, huge sections of pure trash, a few novels in the back (half of which are classics you’ve already read and the other half offering no guidance on what you’d like), and almost nothing worth mentioning in terms of interesting political sections.  But on Amazon, you sort of created your own sections, especially with their links and recommendations.  The fact that users can influence books’ pages and rankings added a lot, too.

But now it seems they do in fact feel the same pressure that dictates that most of your brick and mortar big chain bookstores will forefront crap and right wing nonsense, just because they think that’s how it’s done.  Hopefully, this entire experience will scare them off that path, and make them realize that they might want to focus on selling books to the more literate crowd, just because it makes good business sense, if nothing else.

*In the sense of being inclusive, pro-female sexuality, and sexy without endorsing the soul-destroying hostility-through-sex genre that “Girls Gone Wild” personifies.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:23 PM • (46) Comments

One of the things I’ve always liked about Amazon is that it doesn’t feel like a shady, fly-by-night internet retailer. I’m really lazy when it comes to my shopping, and Amazon always has it.

I hope, when this thing wraps up, if Amazon hasn’t satisfied the Right Politics folks from whom I take my cues, Pandagon will suggest an alternative online retailer?

Comment #1: humanadverb  on  04/14  at  06:35 PM

But now it seems they do in fact feel the same pressure that dictates that most of your brick and mortar big chain bookstores will forefront crap and right wing nonsense, just because they think that’s how it’s done.

It’s like something I said in the other thread.  I can get a copy of Twilight at any bookstore in the country.  If I want a book shopping experience wherein I get the same 20 or so titles shoved down my throat and have to trick the system into showing me something I’m interested in, there’s a Target on my way home from work.

Comment #2: The Opoponax  on  04/14  at  06:38 PM

children that really are too young to see even the covers of sexually explicit materials don’t have credit cards

No, but children that are too young to see those covers might be capable of using a parent’s account to compile a Christmas or birthday wish list.  Don’t underestimate the tech savvy of young kids, please.

Comment #3: keshmeshi  on  04/14  at  06:55 PM

I hope the people responsible are fired.

Won’t happen, but it’s nice to dream. But it still irks me to look at, say, my cable channel grid and see that some of the most absurd stations like TBN are rated as part of the “family” package just because they’re religious. In the meantime, I’m wondering what to do about my review backlog; the fact that they’ve at least admitted fault (however weasly) makes me want to think to go ahead, but they deserve a bit more righteous fury.

Comment #4: BrianX  on  04/14  at  06:58 PM

Oh, and Target has a terrible book selection. It’s been close to a year since I’ve seen a cookbook I actually wanted there.

Comment #5: BrianX  on  04/14  at  06:59 PM

Reading the sparse information released (not good, Amazon—only provides more opportunities for speculation), the best face I can put on what happened is that the reserved data field altered by the French employee was a toggle meant to switch books tagged (either by users or Amazon) with terms like “gay” and “feminist” to be marked as (Amazon-authoritative) adult content, which in turn is filtered out of the top-sellers lists.

Basically he said that amazon has been experimenting with the way they dole out content specifically so that people who are searching Harry Potter or whatever won’t run into links to products that might be offensive.

I don’t think giving users more control over filtering is a bad idea idea per se, but Amazon’s intended target users for the feature seems to be bed-wetting safety moms and Xtian fantasists. So yeah, the test-case or target market or internal policy that was exposed by this error is bad news.

Also bad news is the continued poor handling of the PR damage control. The general mea culpa was nice, but they’re still not telling the whole story, and letting others figure it out for themselves. For example ...

“It has been misreported that the issue was limited to gay- and lesbian-themed titles,” he said. “In fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as health, mind and body, reproductive and sexual medicine, and erotica.”

... which is a sneaky attempt to avoiding the issue that books tagged as “feminist” were also automatically catalogued as adult, thereby impacting many more titles and categories. It’s an insulting ploy. Between the delay in issuing even this barely adequate statement and the wording, if I were a major Amazon shareholder I’d be demanding re-training of the PR staff at the very least.

I discussed the importance of brand protection in the earlier thread, but if you want to see a better way to handle an Internet-based attack on a brand, check out this story about Domino’s Pizza. Whatever you think about Domino’s politics (and I don’t think much of them myself), they were all over this within hours, gladly enlisted the help of Internet users who were outraged by what they saw, accepted responsibility as appropriate, and took the opportunity to re-enforce their brand values.

Comment #6: Gracchus.  on  04/14  at  07:01 PM

Not that I’ve been buying a lot of books lately, thanks to needing a job, but until they fix this, I’m buying from B&N;, Powells, or other online booksellers. I’d go ahead and order something from Powell’s now, but I’m moving to a new house at the end of the month and don’t need any more books ‘til I get settled in.  smile

Comment #7: Scott  on  04/14  at  07:02 PM

I hope the people responsible are fired.

The poor tech sap in France who toggled the field on will get fired. The product managers who came up with the personal filter to be marketed to wingnuts won’t, and neither will the barely competent PR staff.

Comment #8: Gracchus.  on  04/14  at  07:03 PM

Do we really know that it was only pro-gay and pro-feminist titles that were deranked?  Over 50,000 titles were affected; spot-checking a handful of items isn’t a very reliable way to tell what happened.

Comment #9: jmilles  on  04/14  at  07:05 PM

The anti-homosexuality books weren’t, in fact, tagged “gay”—their tags tended towards “sociology,” “parenting,” and “marriage and family.” Which is a matter of what their publishers submitted.  Dear Author showed it very convincingly, when the only difference between the hardcover and paperback editions of John Barrowman’s autobiography was that one edition had “gay” in the metadata tags, and the other didn’t, and so one stayed ranked during the fiasco while the other got delisted.

It was clumsy and stupid, it doesn’t change that assuming that a “gay” tag in the metadata means “PORN OH NOEZ” is discriminatory and idiotic, but they weren’t maliciously INDIVIDUALLY downchecking pro-gay titles and leaving anti-gay ones.  Category error.

Comment #10: Rikibeth  on  04/14  at  07:05 PM

Also bad news is the continued poor handling of the PR damage control. The general mea culpa was nice, but they’re still not telling the whole story, and letting others figure it out for themselves.

Honestly, I was considering writing a letter to Bezos, pointing out how awful their PR has been on this, and attaching my resume. The places I’ve worked doing PR, I was either one of seven employees or the only one doing PR and public info, and I really doubt I would’ve screwed the pooch this badly.

Comment #11: Scott  on  04/14  at  07:08 PM

No, but children that are too young to see those covers might be capable of using a parent’s account to compile a Christmas or birthday wish list.  Don’t underestimate the tech savvy of young kids, please.

There are a few answers for this.

1.  Safe Search.  Other sites use it.  Why not Amazon?

2.  Just about any book that is coming from a mainstream publisher (and even the vast majority of small publishers) is going to have a cover design that is deemed acceptable for viewing by the general public.  Your kid is not going to see anything in a search for “Harry Potter” that she wouldn’t run into in your local Barnes & Noble.

3.  I have to say that, as a pretty dedicated Amazon customer over the years, I’ve never searched for anything normal/boring/nonsexual/“family friendly” and been given results on the first page or two that were pornographic.  Except for one time.  Yesterday.  During their grand experiment in fail.  When running a search to see if “Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit” had been re-listed yet or not.  I only knew it was porn because I’m a grownup and thus got the “nudge nudge wink wink” effect—the title and cover art looked pretty innocuous.

4.  The policy as put into effect last weekend did not remove the vast majority of actual sexual materials from view, at all.

5.  The Grand Experiment In Fail did not seem to have any provisions for book title or cover design, at all.  So if the issue is you not wanting your kid to see a sexual word on a book cover and ask you about it, this policy change would not have helped in that regard.

Comment #12: The Opoponax  on  04/14  at  07:15 PM

Go with Abebooks.com.  It’s more of a network of independent bookstores anyway.  Fuck Amazon.

Comment #13: jTuba  on  04/14  at  07:15 PM

For those who are looking for an amazon alternative, I highly recommend two book swapping websites: www.paperbackswap.com and www.swaptree.com.  I suspect that a lot of folks here, like me, have oodles of books that they’ve either (a) read once and will never read again or (b) read part of and gave up on.  These sites let you swap books with other readers for just the cost of postage.  I’ve unloaded about 50 books that I didn’t want, gotten about 50 books that I do want to read, all for a total cost of circa $70 in postage.  Hard to beat that.

Or find your local independent bookstore at www.indiebound.com.

Most bookstores will order a book for you if you have title/author/ISBN and the book’s in print.  (They may require you to pay in advance if it is a self-published or print on demand title.)

Personally, I am convinced by Amazon’s explanation, having had some limited experience with their byzantine computer systems.  I’m willing to accept that this was a mistake based on the metadata for the books plus maybe some lazy or thoughtless programming plus a language issue.  But if you’re not, there are plenty of places to get books, thought not always as cheap as amazon.

Comment #14: LauraB  on  04/14  at  07:15 PM

The anti-homosexuality books weren’t, in fact, tagged “gay”—their tags tended towards “sociology,” “parenting,” and “marriage and family.” Which is a matter of what their publishers submitted.  Dear Author showed it very convincingly, when the only difference between the hardcover and paperback editions of John Barrowman’s autobiography was that one edition had “gay” in the metadata tags, and the other didn’t, and so one stayed ranked during the fiasco while the other got delisted.

It was clumsy and stupid, it doesn’t change that assuming that a “gay” tag in the metadata means “PORN OH NOEZ” is discriminatory and idiotic, but they weren’t maliciously INDIVIDUALLY downchecking pro-gay titles and leaving anti-gay ones.  Category error.

Yep—the anti-gay folks are less likely to be upfront about what the book is really about, because, you know, the gay doesn’t really exist, so how can it be a subject category?  This information is publisher-supplied, it happens automatically, and for all I know may never actually be seen by a human being.

Comment #15: LauraB  on  04/14  at  07:19 PM

So start a revolution. Don’t just fight to get the delinked books reinstated: start a vicious campaign wherein liberals and sex-positive people start raising a huge fuss about conservo-religious crap. It would be easy as pie to find something dreadfully offensive on any randomly-selected page of RW screeds or ungay-your-kid books or whatever. Put it front and center and demand that these books be delinked, not because of some vague pansy-ass “adult content” or whatever, but because of specific pieces of text, like Ann Coulter demanding that Democrats be publicly beheaded or whatever it is she’s trolling with today.

In other words, don’t make the classic left-wing mistake of saying that since we believe there shouldn’t be censorship at all, we won’t try to censor their books when they’re censoring ours. Fuck that. Fight back. I’ve got a thousand-dollar shopping cart there right now, and I just got the authority from my university to buy them, and I’m going to go have some fun with their customer service department.

Comment #16: felagund  on  04/14  at  07:19 PM

If you know what book you want, or at least an author, there’s abebooks.com.  I don’t know anything about the folks who run it, but you buy from booksellers.  Can find just about anything there, and I do mean anything, and usually there’s a good price in there somewhere.  Rare and antique books, various languages, etc.  The down side is the lack of rating and suggestions.  They do have some featured items, but that’s it. 

And while we are here, if you are looking for suggestions of what to read next, there’s a great library database called NoveList that can generate suggestions based on books you’ve already read or plot/character/theme/tone elements that you want.  It’s subscription only, but many public libraries subscribe to it, so you might be able to access it from home, if your public library is set up that way.  Otherwise, take a trip to the library to use it, or call/email a reference request.

Comment #17: rowmyboat  on  04/14  at  07:22 PM

Not that I’ve been buying a lot of books lately, thanks to needing a job, but until they fix this, I’m buying from B&N;, Powells, or other online booksellers. I’d go ahead and order something from Powell’s now, but I’m moving to a new house at the end of the month and don’t need any more books ‘til I get settled in. 

Scott

Try Borders too- I try not to shop @ B&N;anymore- ever since working there for years sucked away a lot of my soul. Too many people who don’t know the difference between fiction & non-fiction- and morons who hooted up & down that they were “surprised” that a bookstore in Seattle would carry Bill O the Clown. *sigh* Yeah- because we’re ALL ABOUT CENSORSHIP. Morons.

Comment #18: Danica Lefse Queen  on  04/14  at  07:34 PM

I never bought the hacker nonsense, even though one guy tried to take credit for AmazonFail. Many of my erotic romance colleagues saw their books delisted and disappeared over the weekend. Most are back up now. One of my books, “Ultimate Burlesque” (I have a story in that anthology), was delisted, and that is a charity book. Sales go to benefit breast cancer research in the UK. It’s up now with the sale ranking listed. I and my writer colleagues noticed the cherry picking of books that were affected. Erotic romance, feminist books, GLBT books, and gay bios were affected but Playboy pictorials, anti-gay screeds, and straight porn star bios weren’t. That was no “glitch” nor a hacker messing around.

What’s amusing to me is that I’m very new to Twitter, so much so that until this past weekend I had never heard of a hashtag. Even better - Someone put the domain amazonfail.com up on eBay. LOL!

I have written about AmazonFail on my blog yesterday, including lots of updates: AmazonFail on The Countess’ Blog

Comment #19: The Countess  on  04/14  at  07:34 PM

If that’s the problem, why don’t they just make “Amazon Kids!” and be done with it? I’m so confused.

Comment #20: Quijotesca  on  04/14  at  07:37 PM

Re Borders—their website is basically where Amazon is headed if their plan is what #amazonfail made it look like it was.  It is a pain in the goddamn ass to find anything via browsing on the Borders site, unless maybe you search for it by exact word-for-word title. 

A few months ago I was trying to find a particular historical text, browsed their site for it to no avail, searched by author and finally found it several pages in (the first pages were dominated by other more popular or recently published history titles they “thought I might like”), only to order it and get the wrong book in the mail.  Will not be ordering from Borders’ website ever again, #amazonfail or no.

Comment #21: The Opoponax  on  04/14  at  07:49 PM

This was the unfortunate confluence of two neutral pieces of technology: an automated cataloging system and a crowd-sourced tagging system. Neither one is inherently evil by themselves but when you combine a complex metadata system with un-indexed tags and then tell some under trained technician to push a button updating a massive batch of records, this is what you get: a technically innocuous FUBAR that looks like a politcally motivated act of censorship.

I deal with this crap all the time as a catalog librarian. I inherited a library catalog that has passed through a dozen hands in the last thirty years, been moved in and out of a half dozen systems and is just sticky with bad, lazy and outdated cataloging quirks. If I were to try and do a global update on 50,000 records, just to change one piece of metadata, three shades of hell would emerge from the barely spackled over database. Some of it would be full of political squick, I’m sure, just because of outdated terms that are still floating around (some categories in the Library of Congress system still use “Muhammadan” as a subject term and “homosexuality” is still under “Mental Disorders” in some cases).

Throw in user-generated tagging and you’ve got a big mess on your hands.

Now, this doesn’t make what Amazon did alright. They fucked up, big time. Why they even need an “adult” toggle is beyond me. But it was an honest mistake, one that we catalogers know all to well. And the best part is, it can be fixed. But there’s no “Undo” button for this level of mistake. So yes, it is going to take time to repair a mistake that should not have been made.

And for those thinking of jumping off the Amazon boat and climbing aboard the B&N;tugboat: they aren’t any better and are in fact a lot worse in a lot of ways. they would have made this error then shrugged and told everyone to just get over it and not bothered to fix it for six months or a year.

I used to work at a B&N;store. Our store manager decided to rearrange the religion section, moving Judaism into New Age. Good times…

Comment #22: Keith  on  04/14  at  07:58 PM

I don’t want the “responsible people” to get fired.  They’re probably people who had a set of orders and they were trying to follow them to the best of their abilities.

Comment #23: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/14  at  08:06 PM

I’d definitely recommend Powells Books online, but if you’re in the Portland area, go to the actual store.  The first time I went, I expected the Walmart-bright lighting and library silence of my local Borders, but in every isle people were reading books, discussing books, recommending books…. my idea of heaven.

Comment #24: NobleExperiments  on  04/14  at  08:14 PM

“No, but children that are too young to see those covers might be capable of using a parent’s account to compile a Christmas or birthday wish list.  Don’t underestimate the tech savvy of young kids, please.”
That and you can start an Amazon account without a credit card. I know, I did it back in high school…

Comment #25: Devonian  on  04/14  at  08:20 PM

For what it’s worth, as of a couple of seconds ago both Heather Corrina’s book and _Heather Has Two Mommies” have their Sales Ranks back.  I haven’t checked the rest but if it really was just a metadata keyword screwup as Dear Author suggests then it would have been pretty easy to roll back too.

For what it’s worth, if it’s true then the French-guy/metadata story really works for me.  I’ve worked on (much, much smaller) systems similar to Amazon’s and… yeah, it’s easy to make what you think are very localized alterations turn out to be kind of… big.  My exact guess would be that if they’d been Machiavelli-ing this instead of ham-handing in they’d have been a lot more subtle about it.  In particular they’d have had their stories straight *before* the fact and they pretty clearly… didn’t.

Also from Dear Author and other sources it sounds like they’ve been filtering *porn* porn out of standard searches for quite a long time.  So it makes sense that a local coder might have added what he or she thought were local euphemisms affecting only a handful of local titles and instead took out half (but only half) the planet.  (When I worked for an international publishing company we had an English copyeditor who repeatedly balked at “fanny pack” in kid’s books because in England evidently “fanny” does *not* mean butt.)  A final point: I mentioned this theory on my blog and a commenter in Japan said there wasn’t any filtering on comparable Japanese keywords.  Which adds to my suspicion their most recent story is probably what really happened.  (Only weak point: it doesn’t explain the anecdotal report from February.  But at least for now that was an anecdote compared to the avalanche of “data” that showed up this weekend.  And I *still* think they’d have been prepared if this had been an intentional policy change.)

While I’m quite willing to forgive I’m unwilling to forget: even if Amazon is pure as the driven snow this demonstrates that one really doesn’t want to put all eggs in one basket.  So moving forward I’ll probably start putting different book vendors in rotation instead of just reflexively linking to them.

figleaf

Comment #26: figleaf  on  04/14  at  08:26 PM

a technically innocuous FUBAR that looks like a politcally motivated act of censorship.

I’ll split the difference with you.  Not intentional, but the inevitable result when you introduce the potential for censorship into a system.  It’s been shown before that people’s latent prejudice against gays and lesbians and sexually empowered women will infect a system trying to separate porn from not-porn every time.  When we think of porn, we think of that aimed at straight men, and that it’s often hostile to women. And we think that’s what will get grabbed.  But in truth, that stuff is so reflexive of mainstream values that it tends to fly under the radar, while more “unusual” stuff—-feminist, gay—-sticks out and gets nabbed by the system.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/14  at  08:28 PM

If that’s the problem, why don’t they just make “Amazon Kids!” and be done with it? I’m so confused.

Actually, the feature that caused this debacle likely was an attempt to make “Amazon Kids” (and “Amazon Wingnuts,” and “Amazon Liberals,” and “Amazon Gracchus,” etc., etc.). The problem is that the feature was poorly implemented even in development, to the point where one code-monkey’s error could pollute production DB servers across Amazon’s datacentres. PR isn’t the only dept that should be subject to a lessons-learned review once the system and catalogue are rolled back to normal.

Comment #28: Gracchus.  on  04/14  at  08:30 PM

I use Powells mostly.  They’re great with service, have new and used books, will keep a list of special requests and notify you when it comes in (without your being obligated to buy) and are in general cool.  For brick & mortar stores I use Barnes & Noble because Borders donates lots of money to Repubs and I prefer not to help out with that.

MKK

Comment #29: Mary Kay  on  04/14  at  08:35 PM

LauraB, thanks for the IndieBound shout out!

I’ve worked for a small publisher, where upwards of 50% of some of our titles were sold through independent bookstores. I’ve seen the sales budgets of big houses estimating 6% of sales through independent stores. Indie stores are by-and-large staffed by knowledgeable people devoted to hand-selling books to individual customers—even if those books are by little-know authors or small presses.

And every time one of these stores fails—and let there be no doubt, they’re failing with devastating frequency—marginalized voices are silenced that much more, because they’ve lost another outlet. Amazon will just not recommend small titles with the same frequency as bookseller at your community bookstore. As long as we’re going to buy books that challenge the status-quo, why not buy them from businesses devoted to that same goal?

And if you don’t feel like driving anywhere, they’ll ship it to your door, just like Amazon.

Comment #30: elpisian  on  04/14  at  08:41 PM

Powell’s gets my vote too.

If you take NobleExperiments’ advice and visit, plan ahead. Wear really good walking shoes, set a time and place in the store to meet back up, and figure on spending more than you initially planned.

I swear it’s like Disneyland for booklovers. ‘The City Of Books’.

Comment #31: bbrugger  on  04/14  at  08:47 PM

sometime ago, an inside contact on these things told me that a big part of this “offensive” content problem is the simple fact that wingnuts buy a lot of “adult content”, and that makes it so that people who buy an item that is tangential - say, a very floridly illustrated bible - get recomendations for all sorts of bondage-themed novels and the like.

It isn’t that the search engines are recommending things that are inappropriate - it is that the people who buy certain things tend to buy certain other things that are solidly adult content.

So ... the very people who act huffy and offended?  They have their fellow churchgoers to thank.

Comment #32: Ms Kate  on  04/14  at  09:01 PM

I don’t want the “responsible people” to get fired.  They’re probably people who had a set of orders and they were trying to follow them to the best of their abilities.

But those aren’t the “responsible” people. The ones who should get fired are the ones whose orders led to the screwup, not the people who actually implemented it (unless they’re the same people of course, but in a company the size of Amazon, what are the chances of that?).

Comment #33: BrianX  on  04/14  at  09:03 PM

Oh yeah ... I still smell the stench of Mars Hill Church of Misogynistic Homophobia all over this.

Comment #34: Ms Kate  on  04/14  at  09:03 PM

I’ll split the difference with you.  Not intentional, but the inevitable result when you introduce the potential for censorship into a system.

Agreed. Censorship leads always to FUBAR (I have a theory that this the true intent of censorship, no to ban specific items, but just to muddle a situation that will just turn off anyone who doesn’t have the fortitude to put up with assholes or the desire to make more than a basic effort).

Amazon having an adult classification is a bad idea in itself, whatever the byproducts may be, and I hope someone up the corporate ladder will take that lesson away form this.

Comment #35: Keith  on  04/14  at  09:15 PM

Someone might have said this already and I missed it, but abebooks.com is owned by Amazon. Powell is probably the way to go for your online boycotting needs.

Comment #36: F. McGee  on  04/14  at  10:05 PM

” For brick & mortar stores I use Barnes & Noble because Borders donates lots of money to Repubs and I prefer not to help out with that. “

Awe shit do they?  I buy pretty much all of my books and dvds from Amazon or Borders.  Amazon for reasons already well-addressed in this thread, and Borders because they’re close to me and they always email me coupons for anywhere from 20 to 40% off of a non-sale item.  I buy a lot of books.  This really pisses me off.

Comment #37: Lady Vader  on  04/14  at  10:19 PM

alibris.com is a good, non-Amazon-owned (AFAIK!) alternative to abebooks for finding used books.

I convinced an author friend of mine to remove the Amazon links from her site. If Amazon thinks this shitstorm is mostly over they’re in for a nasty surprise. The longer they take to come clean, eliminate the deranking option and institute safe search for the christofascists to opt into, the worse it will b e for them.

Comment #38: Steve LaBonne  on  04/14  at  10:32 PM

Ms Kate: sometime ago, an inside contact on these things told me that a big part of this “offensive” content problem is the simple fact that wingnuts buy a lot of “adult content”, and that makes it so that people who buy an item that is tangential - say, a very floridly illustrated bible - get recomendations for all sorts of bondage-themed novels and the like.

This is pretty much the best thing I have ever heard.

Comment #39: FlipYrWhig  on  04/14  at  11:45 PM

If we’re going to plug alternatives to Amazon that hook into the used-book-store catalogues, I’ll add Biblio to the list. They do good stuff. (Disclosure: I know a few of its staff.)

On the weekend furore: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Comment #40: pseudonymous in nc  on  04/15  at  02:12 AM

Any of these alternatives also sell videogames, or can anyone recommend a place that does?  I buy more videogames through amazon than books/music/movies, and I’d really rather not have to make due with the poor selection of BestBuy, Target, or GameStop.  If it’s not the latest new game or family-friendly shovelware, you won’t find it there.

Comment #41: stogoe  on  04/15  at  09:17 AM

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

This is not necessarily valid, especially in today’s political climate.  Thanks in part to the success of the Right Wing Noise Machine, so many things that may have once been considered naked malice have become so ingrained in the public consciousness by coded language and institutionalization that malice and stupidity are often just two names for the same beast.  In other words, malice and stupidity are by no means mutually exclusive.  The Amazon kerfuffle looks like a demonstration of this dynamic.

Comment #42: Sam Holloway  on  04/15  at  10:30 AM

Ms Kate said

...sometime ago, an inside contact on these things told me that a big part of this “offensive” content problem is the simple fact that wingnuts buy a lot of “adult content”, and that makes it so that people who buy an item that is tangential - say, a very floridly illustrated bible - get recommendations for all sorts of bondage-themed novels and the like.

 

While this is wonderful snark it occured to me overnight that it might not be too far off the mark!  A year ago I ordered a Tony Comstock alt-porn video, Heather Corinna’s “S.E.X.,” and a book about adultery around the world called “Lust in Translation.”  Amazon said other people who bought those books also bought…  “A History of the Catapult!”  I’m fairly easy going but if my children were looking for the catapult book and were offered a Comstock video I’d probably be a bit irked.

Unlike Amazon, though, if I was designing such a suggestion system I’d probably let people opt in or out the way a lot of other sites do.

figleaf

Comment #43: figleaf  on  04/15  at  12:41 PM

In other words, malice and stupidity are by no means mutually exclusive.  The Amazon kerfuffle looks like a demonstration of this dynamic.

yes.

and i don’t really care which it is—as long as amazon addresses the deleterious EFFECTS of what happened upon marginalized groups.

this is like those interminable battles where someone says something clueless (be it racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc.) and then, when called on his or her privilege, says something to the effect of “but i didn’t mean it that way! i’m not a racist (sexist, homophobe, transphobe etc.)” IT DOESN’T MATTER! in this case, what matters is that positive homosexual and feminist books were disproportionately delisted, playing into dominant narratives of gender rigidity and heterosexist privilege. the effects are clearly worse than if a similar glitch had resulted in the delisting/deranking of say, books about the nfl. the effects need to be addressed, then we can look at motives.

Comment #44: sophiefair  on  04/15  at  02:21 PM

Unlike Amazon, though, if I was designing such a suggestion system I’d probably let people opt in or out the way a lot of other sites do.

I’ve been begging them to let me permanently opt out of their idiotic suggestion and recommendation system for forever.  I begged them when they’d suggest electronics to me, I begged them when they suggested movies and tv shows, I begged them when they wouldn’t let me turn off the damn search history for good.  They don’t care, so long as they can annoy me with completely plebeian selections for every category they think they’ll make money.

“Customers who bought this book also had absolutely no taste or imagination.” *head desk*

Comment #45: Godless Heathen  on  04/15  at  05:27 PM

People, what am I supposed to be seeing? Nothing here seems to contradict the hacker theory. Nothing in the two statements here from the company points to a French guy, and indeed the second one says no human made the decision.

It seems like a simple matter to write a program that would look for “gay” or feminist tags and report that book as adult.

Comment #46: hf  on  04/16  at  02:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.