What Do Amazon's Computers Have Against Fictional Gays And Lesbians?

from the just-wondering... dept

The big controversy of the weekend (there’s always gotta be at least one, it seems) is that people started noticing that Amazon.com started removing books that involve gay or lesbian characters from its sales rankings, and when asked about it, the company initially said that it was excluding “adult” material from certain searches. That struck many as odd, considering that many of the “excluded” books weren’t “adult” at all. After the controversy continued, Amazon changed its story and started claiming that it was actually all just a computer “glitch.” Of course, this sounds remarkably similar to the computer “glitch” Amazon found when it suddenly deleted a bunch of negative reviews of EA’s DRM-encrusted video game Spore. Whether it’s true or not, Amazon is certainly giving off the appearance that it blames any such mistake on a “glitch,” but never seems to provide anything in the way of details to support that.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: amazon

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “What Do Amazon's Computers Have Against Fictional Gays And Lesbians?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Lucretious (profile) says:

Re: Re:

yes, because whites are the only ones showing this level of homphobia. We should all emulate the model that is the african american community which regularly vehemently decries any comparison to its own issues with prejudice among the greater population. Or Many Asian, middle east or slavic cultures which have been known to imprison folks for homosexual “deviancy”.

just stop, please.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

WTF are you talking about? Old white bigots at Amazon? You are clueless.

Amazon’s average age is probably closer to 30 than most businesses. But unlike an older established business run by “old white bigots” these newer businesses HATE to admit they are ever wrong. If they answer inquiries at all, they always blame something else.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:

Thanks, AJ. We need to overturn these draconian laws no matter what the stupid majority thinks! We need your help desperately to do so. Please help me in my quest to legally marry my nextdoor neighbor, a 12 year old boy. And I also want to get rid of those stupid monogamy laws. I also want to marry my dead grandmother, my sheep, Bessie, and my toaster. These stupid moral laws need to go. Thanks for your support!

TheStuipdOne says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And that comment AJ cuts to the heart. The majority of the voters in california listened to the moral outrage of a minority that think that if two guys get married then the world will end. There is a big difference between allowing the marriage of two consenting adults without regard to gender and letting an adult marry a child or an animal or many adults.

I’m guessing these people are afraid that their children will do something to make themselves happy instead of pleasing mommy and daddy and passing on the family’s genetics to another generation.

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Your argument about ‘consenting adults’ just doesn’t fly.

I don’t see why it doesn’t fly. Sex between consenting adults is perfectly legal, why can’t marriage between two consenting adults be legal too? I really don’t get what all the fuss is about.

If it really bothers you that much, we could always say “..between two consenting human adults..” but, something tells me that isn’t going to “fly” for you either.

You open one door, then you MUST open all doors.

Says who? You? I can have sex with a girl, that doesn’t mean I can have sex with an underage girl. There, proof that allowing one thing doesn’t allow all things. Now, show me where it says (in print, or in spirit) that allowing one thing allows all things, please.

Good luck, my misguided, fearful little friend.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The government has a pretty poor track record. Income tax was supposed to be for the top 1% of the income earners. That door was opened and now look at what you have. Same thing with Social Security, government funded healthcare for seniors, and a thousand more. Once you open the door, it will lead to every conceivable permutation.

Osno says:

No problem… there’s young white biggoted male execs to replace them. Didn’t know those run Amazon, but it looks like they do.

Anyway, The straight road to kyle (teen gay fiction), which is the only gay culture book I can think of right now, still shows. Either they fixed the glitch, or they never knew that that one has gay characters in it.

R. Miles says:

Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

Let’s see…

Remove the listing because the country is still anti-homosexual and not offend potential bible-thumping new customers


Leave the listing and receive countless attacks from those same bible-thumping customers.

Glitch be thy name until such time listings don’t portray homosexuality but still remain on the list.

Programmers are going to be working overtime on this one.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

I guess the attacks never come from the other direction?

I don’t know why people get so upset about stuff like this. They are a business. We are customers. We don’t have to do business with a business we don’t like. If you don’t believe customers have all the power, just look at Circuit City.

Tgeigs says:

Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

“If you don’t believe customers have all the power, just look at Circuit City.”

Ok, and if you DO believe the customers have all the power, just look at historical examples like AIG, IG Farben, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, GM, etc. etc. etc.

When customers stop buying, but are then forced to buy via government stimulus through taxation, where does the power really lie? Face it, pure capitilism is dead, because capitalists killed it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

“Capitalism is dead”

This is exactly what the current administration wants you to believe. You cannot replace the current system until you prove it has failed. The goal now is to make it fail so it can be replaced with Socialism or Communism.

The current stimulus is not to get the economy rolling; it is to kill it completely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

If you don’t believe customers have all the power, just look at Circuit City.

Heh, I saw a building the other day that used to be a Circuit City. It has a big hand-written sign in the front window that reads “Circuit City is now closed, PERMANENTLY! Thanks to all you NOT-SO-LOYAL customers that PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!”

Yeah, they had a real good attitude there. I’m glad they’re gone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

>Unless of course it is two hot chicks, then it is perfectly acceptable.

Amen, brother! There are only two things I can imagine that could improve upon the naturalness of two hot chicks hooking up – adding more hot chicks and/or including me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

First, the only thing better than fictional hot lesbians are real ones.

Second, I know a 20 yr old bible thumper who spends his every waking moment trying to get laid. Let him lay eyes on a lesbian though and he lets loose a string of obscenties and insults that’d make sailor blush. I don’t know what he’d say if he saw a gay man.

Funny that, how immoral most religious people are when it comes to their own lives and their own choices, but how quickly they condem everyone else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

So, where are your facts and figures to back up this “most religious people” claim?

Most religious people realize they have faults too. Oh wait, I don’t have any facts and figures either. I guess since I said it last, it must be true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

My “most religious people” comes from 30+ years of going to church. My “most religious people” comes from 20+ years of watching and reading the news and being aware of the comments religious people make and then how they act themselves. My “most religious people” comes from 40 years of life experience.

See, you got it partially right, most religious people do realize they have faults. The problem is that most religious people, no, most people in general, spend more of their time judging everyone elses faults and shortcomings and sins than they do trying to correct or reconcile their own. That’s bad enough when it’s a non-religious person who doesn’t hold to any truly “higher” sense of right and wrong or morality but to society’s, but when it’s a religious person who’s specifically taught not to throw the first stone, not to judge others, and to keep their own house in order first, then it’s especially bad.

R. Miles says:

Re: Re: Rock. Hard place. Introduce each other.

You think religious grounds are the only objections?
The only? No. Majority? Most definitely.

How about disgusting and unnatural?
Disgusting comes down to personal opinion, and there’s nothing to be done about that. As for unnatural, hard to say on this one. But that’s a topic for a different day.

Unless of course it is two hot chicks, then it is perfectly acceptable.
Again, personal opinion. Personally, I’m not against it (regardless of sex). But on the same note, neither does it do anything for me.

I wouldn’t censor it just because of my disinterest in it, but clearly Amazon doesn’t feel this way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Of course, Amazon donates to Republican PACs and campaigns whereas Barnes & Noble donates to Democratic ones. All this info was available on buyblue.com but you can find it in campaign reports if you need to check veracity (it’s the web; you should). Amazon has always been right-leaning so this new kerfaffle isn’t terribly surprising.

Jacob L says:

Re: Mike F.'s comment

Wake up to what? The religious fanatics? I grew up in the church, still believe in God, and I am a gay man. I think it is terrible that so many extremists pass on their hatred to their children. So what if there is homosexual content in a television show or a book. If you believe it is that inappropriate for your children, then do your best to prevent them from seeing or reading it. It falls on the parent to be involved in their child’s lives. But as the basic point of this whole discussion, how is being gay unnatural? Even biologists have studied monkeys who show homosexual behavior. Hmmmmmm maybe they were “molested as a child” too, since that’s what causes homosexuality (insert sarcastic eye roll here).

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) says:

Re: Re: Mike F.'s comment

I think he meant that almost every show on tv or movie has to include a token gay person/couple, as if it is normal for everyone to have a homosexual involved in their life when this is far from reality. But since when is tv reality? As for the responsibility stuff, you are spot on. If you feel so strongly against homosexuality then don’t watch tv!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Mike F.'s comment

I love the spin gays use by labeling everything “hatred”. What non-gays object to, is homosexuality being taught as a perfectly ok and natural act. It is up to the parents to teach their children “right from wrong”. Gays want it to be taught that homosexuality is right and non-gays (not all of course) want it taught as wrong. Why don’t gays realize being gay doesn’t make them special. It is a sexual preference, nothing more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: censorship

Apparently this tag based. The fastest way to kill the system is to tag everything as homosexual, lesbian or any of the other key words. I can imagine the Bible disapearing from searches would set off alarms.

If they wanted to give individuals the power to block certain key words and classes of things that would be one thing but deciding for everyone what tags are bad is the worst corporate nannyism.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...