Besides, if ‘I’ had been one of those ‘brushing it all aside’, I’d not bothered engaging into this discussion in the first place to see what’s going on, just by trying to call for more objectivity and wait, like many have in fact. If YOU’re still unhappy, yeah, please do go somewhere else, but don’t call others ignorant who won’t. It’s about Amazon – NOT their own viewpoints that won’t concur with YOURS still bent on rejecting Amazon’s ‘explanations’, when some in fact do accept them and are finished with it no matter the actual outcome leaving many unsatisfied.

But I too doubt Amazon’s will react to us any further regardless of how much YOU want them to by leaving more comments they’ll never actually read anyway. So simply take that up with AMAZON as long as you need to DIRECTLY – NOT the publicly contributing blogger. WE’re not the ‘issue’, Amazon is. Period.

And if you wanna read some more or want to comment on them – here’s another link to other likeminded bloggers. Take care.

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-amazon-censoring-lgbt-books.html

BLAH BLAH BLAH

A lot of people seem eager to brush this whole episode aside because Amazon supposedly “apologized,” “explained,” and “fixed” the problem.

I never saw anything resembling an actual apology. I don’t buy the explanations — at least three, as of last count. And the problem was not a “glitch,” it is the system of deranking books marked as “adult” so they don’t show up on searches. THIS, as far as I can tell, is still policy. Therefore it has not been “fixed.” Heck, I just did a search and “homosexuality” is still returning a list of anti-gay books.

I don’t hold out much hope that anything else will be forthcoming from Amazon, but I don’t plan to do business with them anymore. I’d like to shop where certain books aren’t hidden under the counter.

And #amazonfail was not a failure. It drew attention to an issue that had been going on for months with no action from the company. Public pressure forced them to do something, even if their response wasn’t adequate in my opinion. At least most people now know that Amazon’s searches and recommendations are dishonest. Huzzah for activism and free speech.

In response to your first address point to oblige your kind reply – I not only meant ‘Shirky’s’ blog in general, plus the many entries found there more leaning towards his own more objective sentiments, but also others on other blogs who were NOT intent on shredding Amazon outright from the start at no facts established at that point. If you personally don’t consider this as more ‘clear-headed’ approach, that’s your prerogative to think so. But it cannot be considered a ‘misstatement’ of mine since they were more ‘clear-headed’ in MY view. So much for differing ‘views’ then ‘only’.

Secondly, ‘hearsay’ is all ‘I’ got when I joined a couple of days into the mess, for one in terms of what ‘really’ happened – Therefore ‘my’ saying it was not ‘fact’ (or ‘hearsay’) is correct, since this was an ongoing issue and things apparently changed daily at their own updating/fixing things etc. – So when B looked after A had seen different ratings/books missing or not etc, and when C joined with his/her ‘opinion’ it was different again – Which means, what they or you and I saw and took as given ‘fact’ at that point in time was ‘fact’ to them/us. Or as you put it, their/our personal ‘experience’. Which in fact is exactly the same you however quoted as ‘misstated’, when it’s not, only different wording.

Thirdly, I for one have seen a couple of ‘public statements’ made by Amazon on several news sites – if to believe them was NOT the issue, and obviously had been rejected by the community – but that ‘I’ saw several at given times therefore is nonetheless ‘fact’ to me. I’m in the UK and get ‘different’ news bulletins btw, so don’t forget different location and sources in this matter. If these news statements were ‘official statements’ by Amazon or not, is not for me to hazard. So again, that’s not ‘misstated’ but fact of what ‘I’ read/heard.

Fourthly, AGAIN – all I did was ‘quote’ that particular UK report, which to me (and undoubtedly others) was ‘fact’ at that given time when we saw it. If, again, their (the news channel’s) findings were ‘true’ to ‘you’ is another matter altogether, since we here saw a comparison of the UK and US sites which showed/not showed rankings. (Of that Stephen Fry bio e.g.) So don’t say I ‘misstated’ their own report findings recorded on film, (which it’s still on YouTube btw.) and if ‘I’ ‘believe’ them is another matter again.

Fifthly, AGAIN – I said some state’s legislation ‘could’ have been the reason for their sudden ‘adult policies’ changes – NOT that it was ‘fact’. It was only one of several options offered to be taken into consideration (based on the too obvious lesser gay-friendly ‘US politics’) – nothing more. Ergo, not a ‘misstated’ quote either, but simply possible explanation of what made Amazon apply adult tags suddenly. If you say that’s unlikely (as an attorney) so be it, no problem. I don’t care either way and was just a possibility.

As to your last paragraph – when I said ‘it’s over’, that means it’s over for me, simply because we will on the face of it never know what ‘really’ happened with the rankings etc. (unless it was an ‘error’ that’s still simply being rejected, fine, do so) – Ergo, there’s nothing more ‘we’ or I can do at this point, and forcing Amazon to ‘come clean’ hasn’t transpired so far, and as I said, probably won’t happen in the near future (no matter how many times affected customers complain to them it seems). Since, as I said before too, it will take no doubt longer than a ‘week’ to even get to any complaints, and when calling them and they give you the same old tune or new policy routine, well, take that up with THEM again if you have to, NOT me.

Or simply go somewhere else if you’re not happy with Amazon, I’m not their representative, only a ‘customer’ who didn’t have any trouble with them so far (and I don’t care about their tags and rankings or (what) not btw. at all). I’m not against the community by simply trying to analyse the contentious issues more objectively, rather than blindly join any intent to shred the giant and whatever ‘he’ does is outright rejected. I suffered dangerous shit like that in real life just because I’m ‘different’ or a ‘foreigner’, or whatnot – don’t do it. It works both ways, and always backfires, remember that.

Or, why not simply accept one of their ‘explanations’ and move on? Again, when ‘I’ checked on certain books ‘they’ had been ‘fixed’, or were ’still’ there (or ‘again’, fine, I never said some weren’t ‘missing’ at any ‘point’ prior to my joining) and other authors (I know ‘personally’) have found them ‘back intact’ as well. If some are still missing to ‘your’ words or are getting fixed, then that’s just the same problem: different experiences of differing parties at different times. So none of what ‘I’ said, was ‘misstated’ but fact at that time to ‘me’.

Besides, this issues is about what ‘Amazon’ did, NOT what ‘I’ read or saw that doesn’t concur with YOUR ‘experiences’. Or I simply could return the ball and say what you countered was just as misstated, when it’s all ‘only’ based on our differing experiences at different times. I’m not the only one with differing ones. (Otherwise you can just say they or I ‘lied’ I doubt you could/would, not to worry.) But that way we’re still just hacking away at our own core, NOT the ‘issues’, (which is what I tried to actually expose and you promptly repeated by nitpicking my contributions). But for me this issue is passé now, I’m done with this entire mess. Keep together, not fight each other. Take care all.