For google to pick up on this, you're going to have to uncheck the "exclude my journal from search engine results" ticky on the account management page.
It's been suggested that this is a dogfight set up by an outside group, possibly an unspecified band of "Religious Right" zealots who are complaining about targeted books in sufficient volume to have them flagged adult and therefore removed.
I find this profoundly improbable, but it's at least out there as a theory, and I know others do find it more convincing than the other (non)explanations.
I feel as though there is no reason to remove any content at all. Period. It amounts to censorship, the restriction of the free availability of information to a consuming public; it also causes financial and professional damage to the authors involved. So for me, the "stages" possibility ameliorates nothing --it's still censorship, and it still started with LGBT works.
*nods* If this were an independent, I'd let them do it, but it _is_ Amazon.... If they have members on their staff who are upset by these sorts of works I'd think it's a little late for such extreme measures. It's wrong to go back on your promises to authors, to completely turn the tables on them. If these works upset staff members so much, they should do a bit like Audible has done, compartmentalize but leave them easily accessible--just give fair warning for those readers who do not wish to stumble upon this particular genre.
I mean, I can understand that last--if an anti-SF snob accidentally picked up an SF book because it wasn't properly labeled, they would be upset, too. It's good marketing to know what you're getting into. It's poor marketing to sell books that you then subsequently hide and make invisible.
One of my favorite fail arguments in this entire debate has been that Amazon never promised these authors listings or searchability. That one, single argument both ignores the purpose of both functions (to generate revenue) and assumes that now that Amazon has innovated the practice, other retailers have not caught on and are not willing to implement it themselves, even if Amazon feels like being catty of a morning.
I have no problem with people being able to filter their own search results --though I think it's an ostrich-privilege, as non-traditional sexualities are not simply going to go away if denied and overlooked. But still: as long as they're only depriving themselves, paying customers should be able to do anything they like which restricts their own service.
I share your rage about this. I can't believe it. Well, yes, I can, unfortunately. I hear that something is going on over on Twitter in response to this so at least a lot of people are learning about it.
I feel somewhat badly that anyone's Easter was ruined over this --and that includes the Amazon employees whose boxes will be full and whose ears will be ringing come Sunday.
As with the bailout, the punishments are unlikely to reach those who need the lesson.
Comments 10
Reply
Well, okay, and frothy with rage, but that's a whole separate and less articulate post.
Thank you for the reference in your own space.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Is anyone sure they're not doing this in stages? Hitting one genre of "adult" first while the others are being located and taken off?
*puzzled, baffled, why?*
Reply
It's been suggested that this is a dogfight set up by an outside group, possibly an unspecified band of "Religious Right" zealots who are complaining about targeted books in sufficient volume to have them flagged adult and therefore removed.
I find this profoundly improbable, but it's at least out there as a theory, and I know others do find it more convincing than the other (non)explanations.
I feel as though there is no reason to remove any content at all. Period. It amounts to censorship, the restriction of the free availability of information to a consuming public; it also causes financial and professional damage to the authors involved. So for me, the "stages" possibility ameliorates nothing --it's still censorship, and it still started with LGBT works.
Reply
I mean, I can understand that last--if an anti-SF snob accidentally picked up an SF book because it wasn't properly labeled, they would be upset, too. It's good marketing to know what you're getting into. It's poor marketing to sell books that you then subsequently hide and make invisible.
Reply
I have no problem with people being able to filter their own search results --though I think it's an ostrich-privilege, as non-traditional sexualities are not simply going to go away if denied and overlooked. But still: as long as they're only depriving themselves, paying customers should be able to do anything they like which restricts their own service.
Reply
Reply
As with the bailout, the punishments are unlikely to reach those who need the lesson.
Reply
Leave a comment