Slashdot Mirror


Amazon is Burying Sexy Books, Sending Erotic Novel Authors to the 'No-Rank Dungeon' (vice.com)

Samantha Cole, reporting for Motherboard: In the last few days, word has spread among independent erotica authors on social media that Amazon was quietly changing its policies for erotic novels. Five authors I spoke to, and several more on social media, have reported that their books were stripped of their best seller rankings -- essentially hiding them from casual browsing on the site, and separating them from more mainstream, safe-for-work titles.

[...] Most people browsing Amazon books might not notice or care about the best seller rank -- a number that's based on how well the title is selling on Amazon.com -- but it's part of an algorithm that influences how the book appears in search, and whether it shows up in advertisements, including suggestions from one product to the next ("If you like this book, you might like this book"). For independent authors and booksellers, this ranking is hugely important for visibility.

100 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. I'm OK with this... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I search for books on dinosaurs, I don't really want to see a "romance" title about a guy and a t-rex having sex.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I'm OK with this... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      But if you search for "sex", do you want books about birds and bees?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:I'm OK with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not? That is technically a "book on dinosaurs" as much as any other.

    3. Re:I'm OK with this... by ElRabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will be OK until Amazon decides that book on dinosaur may be offending for a certain category of people (fundamentalist) and then send them down the drain too. Hidding erotic book is just the first step to send us back to Middle Age

    4. Re:I'm OK with this... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Ross Geller does.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    5. Re:I'm OK with this... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not seeing the slippery slope here.

      Seriously - a book about gay dinosaur sex (WTF?), on a site where more and more minors go browsing (so they can bug Mom and Dad to buy them whatever they find) is most likely not something you want turning up in generic results. Remove the silly Dino reference, and the same holds true for any adult vs. generic-audience book.

      Couple of thoughts come to mind here...

      * Amazon could have done this better (say, similar to Google or Bing's SafeSearch functions, where you have to opt-in before seeing adult material), but it's not a bad start from a parental POV.

      * A question - does this change also hold true for non-book products Amazon offers on its site (like sex toys ferinstance)? If so, that is your benchmark as to where Amazon is going with this - whether its a trial balloon with just one type of product (books), an overall push to segregate adult-only from generic stuff, or...?

      * Amazon is a private entity - it can organize its wares however it likes.

      * No, a private organization self-censoring does not "send us back to Middle Age(sic)". It's government you have to watch out for, for signs like this.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:I'm OK with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you read up on the "slippery slope fallacy", they'll usually list it as a "potential fallacy", as if what someone says it could lead to does in fact happen, then the original argument was in fact not a fallacy. For example, if the government says that they want to monitor all internet traffic to look for child porn, and I say it needs to be disallowed because they might use it to monitor all citizens, officially that's a slippery slope fallacy, but then you hear about PRISM, and it turns out my argument may not have been such a slippery slope after all.

      Basically, dismissing an argument based on "slippery slope" really isn't a valid dismissal in any case except the most outlandish slippery slopes. If it's possible, it must be considered.

    7. Re: I'm OK with this... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Never had to that level show up on my kindles. Had a bunch for romance novels but the art works is like you saw on Harlequin Romance books from decades ago.

    8. Re:I'm OK with this... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That's just stupid. Neither Amazon nor anyone else is doing this because of Pence.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:I'm OK with this... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Don't be such a puritan. Next thing you're going to tell me is that when you search for detergent you don't want to see this either. Prude!

    10. Re:I'm OK with this... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If I search for books on dinosaurs, I don't really want to see a "romance" title about a guy and a t-rex having sex.

      So if you search for *something* you thinkg *someone else* should decide precisely what part of *something* you should see, and you're happy with that because you may see a title you don't like?

      Maybe you should move to North Korea where the censors can keep you safe from seeing things that may cause your brain to hurt.

    11. Re:I'm OK with this... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All the evidence is that it works the opposite way. Society becomes more permissive over time.

      Some people will always try to drag us backwards, but overall and over the longer term it's pretty much impossible to resist.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:I'm OK with this... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Dinosaurs? Fake NEWS!

    13. Re:I'm OK with this... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how President Trump can not yet sign a law, but have it go into effect. Must be a time traveler.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:I'm OK with this... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the new law that holds online companies liable for anything resembling sex trafficking......funny how Congress passed a law that Trump has not yet signed, and it still gets enforced long before it goes into effect. I guess you can use greed against lust to enforce morality.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    15. Re:I'm OK with this... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only if your entire history is less than 50 years old.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re:I'm OK with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you search for "sex" on Amazon, you are doing it wrong... on many levels at that.

    17. Re:I'm OK with this... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Tzz .... your mother made a mistake in explaining it to you. It is not about birds and bees!! It is about bees and flowers, you understand?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:I'm OK with this... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      "Slippery slope" is a form of argument, which may or may not be fallacious depending on each particuar use. Future events don't retroactively make originally-fallacious assumptions used in constructing a slippery slope argument non-fallacious.

      If you buy a lottery ticket, a subsequent win doesn't mean that buying the ticket in the first place was a wise financial decision.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    19. Re:I'm OK with this... by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Pence was an excuse. Was the rest of what I said BS? Did Trump not today - in the previous story here - diss the crap out of Amazon? Could it be they're looking for a way to duck the storm that's coming to all these data-grabbers by offering something that might deflect attention from their other issues?
      C'mon, if you think any of this works by the letter, much less the spirit of law, you need to get out of the basement for a couple of decades and find out how stuff works out here. Or maybe just live a couple decades in the first place, and gather some data from other than media that is only there to sell ads and confirm your biases. Check some stuff out yourself -with your own eyes. Work in a political party, as I have, for example.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    20. Re:I'm OK with this... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time to reinstate the '18 years or older' rule for Internet use.

      How do you "reinstate" something that never existed?

    21. Re:I'm OK with this... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the evidence is that it works the opposite way. Society becomes more permissive over time.

      There are many, many counterexamples. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq after the US invasion, Victorian Britain, the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. These are all examples of societies becoming less morally tolerant and more repressive.

    22. Re:I'm OK with this... by Askmum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I search for books on dinosaurs, I don't really want to see a "romance" title about a guy and a t-rex having sex.

      You may be trolling here, but this is actually an example of the creepy kind of censorship that is very prevalent these days. Just like Google removing KODI from their autocomplete.
      This is censorship and censorship sucks. We should stand up and fight companies who do this, not make jokes about it. Because at the end, there will be nobody who can make the joke.

    23. Re:I'm OK with this... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are two really important problems with this:

      a) Where do you draw the line? Is Stranger in a Strange Land "erotic"? How about Lady Chatterlie's Lover? Is it "eroticism" that we hide, or do we hide books with politically incorrect content, such as books that refer to persons of color as ni**ers or w*gs? Do we hide books that might make some particular group feel bad? Do we hide poltical books?

      If Amazon starts hiding every single book that has a sex scene in it, it will become Amazon for Kids. We'll be thrown back to the last century, only worse, as Amazon is well on the way to becoming the only viable bookseller in the country, and its browsing algorithms are already super dangerous in terms of raising any new book or casting it down to oblivion, no matter how good or bad it might be. Sure, many books with erotic scenes aren't porn, but again, where do you draw the line? On what basis?

      b) Who decides? This is the really terrible thing -- not only is there no clear line, but whatever criterion they come up with for a line is being implemented by some overworked human who probably has no time at all to actually read the books that they are effectively "banning", hiding from nearly everybody. This isn't even malicious censorship -- it is censorship by the lazy, censorship by the unqualified, censorship by a bored clerk somewhere.

      I say this as the author of a book that is not porn, it is actually at least an attempt at actual literature, that has erotic content (it's a book for grown ups to be sure) that has been classified without my knowledge or consent as "erotica" by Amazon and hidden so securely that when I tell people about it, they often can't find it searching for it by name.

      And that s**Ks.

      (And by the way, /., putting a "lameness filter" on my submissions that prevents them from happening if they contain ni**ers and w*gs spelled the right way in a context where I'm using them in an intelligent conversation is an example of exactly the same thing. Leaving me pretty damn mad...)

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    24. Re:I'm OK with this... by dddux · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you're looking for sex, you should be searching for yourporn, youporn, spankbang, vporn, porn.tv, empflix, porntrex, porntube, porndoe, sexiz, cliphunter, befuck, pornhub, sunporno, tnaflix, 4tube, beeg, bravotube, x-videos etc. I'm somewhat of an expert. d= ;)

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    25. Re:I'm OK with this... by PPH · · Score: 1

      How do you "reinstate" something that never existed?

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Rules_and_etiquette "It is considered illegal to use the ARPANet for anything which is not in direct support of Government business". And this was the case until around 1995, when the Internet was opened up for commercial traffic.

      So yeah, effectively "no kids allowed".

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  2. Nothing to see here.... by GoJays · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People seem to forget that Amazon is a private business. They can do whatever they want. If they choose to not show your book, that is up to them. They are not blocking the sale of the book. The author can sell the book on their own site, or at another book store if they like.

    If the book was removed from the INTERNET, this may be a problem because it is the removal of freedom of speech. Not shown in Amazon searches.... nothing to see here... move along.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here.... by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      People seem to forget that Amazon is a private business. They can do whatever they want

      How absolute is this in the US? For example, if you have a literal monopoly on something?

    2. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one is claiming it's a 2nd amendment or free speech issue. The issue here is that Amazon is such a dominant force for modern literature that authors are now pretty much beholden to whatever whims they decide to act upon.

      Author Jenny Trout had every book in her contemporary erotic romance series The Boss (written under the pen name Abigail Barnette) stripped of its rank and reclassified to remove it from the Romance category. She told me in an email that Amazon is “the bread and butter of every indie out there.” She says she sold half a million copies through Amazon in a three-year period, compared to 35,000 at every other retailer combined. Her series was de-ranked without warning or explanation.

      “There's no way for an indie author to make a living without Amazon, so whatever nonsense they decide they're pulling this month is just one other thing we've got to put up with,” Trout said. “And that sucks, but they're a private business and they get to do what they want, so we can only really complain from a consumer standpoint. It's not censorship, it's just a big bullshit hassle, so there's really no recourse for us.”

      I'm not some anti-Amazon crusader by any means, but it's always a little worrisome for a single entity to become as dominant as they've become in so many areas, because when this sort of thing happens, there's literally no recourse for people, and no real way for market forces to make corrections.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Nothing to see here.... by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People seem to forget that Amazon is a private business. They can do whatever they want. [...] Not shown in Amazon searches.... nothing to see here... move along.

      Nobody has said anything about the First Amendment--which you are jumping onto with a strawman.

      Just because they're a private business doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.

      People are complaining that this private business is behaving in a way which is detrimental to the livelihood of their suppliers, and convenience of their customers. This IS something worth discussing--so that suppliers and customers know what's happening and can make knowledgeable business and purchasing decisions.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The author can sell the book on their own site, or at another book store if they like.

      Can they? That's the thing about monopolies: people don't really buy anywhere else.

      Plus, many hosters, payment processors, service providers, etc have a "no sexual content" policy. Then there are countless regulations that serve as a barrier of entry. Setting up your own store isn't as easy as it sounds.

    5. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Where are my moderator votes when I need them? +1

    6. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How absolute is this in the US? For example, if you have a literal monopoly on something?

      Let's see if I can write one that doesn't immediately get downmodded for honesty (not going to try to compete with the one that gown downmodded for attempted British vulgarity).

      In the US, the Federal government is fairly tolerant of natural monopolies that stay in their own domain. The two main situations that can result in antitrust investigations are using the weight of a monopoly to undercut competition elsewhere and drive out business, and trying to establish yourself as a utility while also holding onto the priveledges of private ownership.

      It is important to keep in mind that there is a long process between "company deserves an antitrust investigation" and "company is investigated under antitrust law." However, once the government puts enough resources in to have an official investigation, no amount of evidence will prevent a guilty verdict. On the other hand, the nature of the guilty verdict may be completely nonsensical, such as breaking up a telecommunications monopoly on geographic grounds so that instead of every American with a phone buying service from one national provider, they instead buy service from their one regional provider that has non-compete agreements with all the other regional providers.

      So, to evaluate the monopoly claims, is Amazon the overwhelming leader (more business than all their competition combined) in a category of commerce?
      Is Amazon using their overwhelming position in a category of commerce to bankroll undercutting competition in a different category of commerce?
      Is Amazon the sole provider of a dominant standard while exploiting that advantage to shape a marketplace?

      If the first is true and at least one of the other two is also true, this may eventually end in an antitrust case against them.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here.... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      IANAL but this reeks of discrimination.
      A private business can't discriminate against certain categories just because it's a private business.
      However... Amazon could go ahead and completely ban erotica literature as a whole, which is not discrimination, it's policy change. But right now they're basically saying "you can sell your books here just like everyone else but you won't get the same treatment as everyone else" which is the definition of discrimination.
      Similar to "you can ride the bus but not in the "whites" section".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:Nothing to see here.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People seem to forget that Amazon is a private business. They can do whatever they want.

      Actually no they can't. They stop being allowed to do whatever they want when they reach the status of monopoly, which they have.

    9. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Because this is about criticism for a apparently stupid decision from a company with near-monopoly power for a certain market subset, not (as far as I've seen) claims of illegal censorship...

      Just because you are anonymous you don't have to act stupid.

    10. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Discrimination in itself is allowed, only discrimination of a number of protected groups aren't. IOW "no shirt no service" is okay, "no n*ggers" isn't.

    11. Re:Nothing to see here.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually I had expected that you would suppose that they have to treat any author equally.
      What about your famous free speech ;D etc. ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Nothing to see here.... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      People are complaining that this private business is behaving in a way which is detrimental to the livelihood of their suppliers, and convenience of their customers.

      Who says having erotic fiction lumped in with other books is convenient for customers?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Nothing to see here.... by techdolphin · · Score: 1

      There may be something to see here. When businesses engage in actions that destroy lives or block free speech, there could be a problem. For example, suppose Amazon stopped ranking books that talked about racial discrimination. Where is the line drawn? Can I stop ranking books about gays? Can I stop ranking books about religions that don't allow gay marriage? This action by Amazon is very disturbing.

    14. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Amazon doesn't have a monopoly, because all of the products available through amazon are available elsewhere. Unless you specifically NEED that amazon branded USB cable over one branded with some other company name.

      These books can be sold through other websites, brick-and-mortar, or whatever you like... so Amazon cannot be considered a monopoly under any rational definition. Full Stop.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    15. Re:Nothing to see here.... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Define "protected group".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    16. Re:Nothing to see here.... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      No they haven't.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    17. Re:Nothing to see here.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Define "protected group".

      Protected Group

    18. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Kreela · · Score: 1

      This. Decreasing numbers of indie authors are "wide", ie selling on platforms other than Amazon, because of the lure of its exclusive Select platform which allows authors to take part in Kindle Unlimited. So when Amazon makes changes like this with no warning it can have a profound effect on authors whose careers are largely dependent on Amazon sales. It's also quite hard to have some books in Select and others at different retailers, because readers will complain about not being able to get titles on KU. The only way to correct this imbalance is for readers to buy elsewhere. That's a big ask, when the only benefit to the reader is something as intangible as the general health of the publishing market.

    19. Re:Nothing to see here.... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Amazon is responding to their customers, just like they've done in the past.

      One of the biggest source of customer complaints was Romance novels showing up all over the site in other categories, like Mil SF, or historical fiction, or whatever, when they didn't really fit, because Romance is such a huge and competitive category. So Amazon put in place some restrictions so that people who were looking for Romance genre books would find them and people who weren't, didn't.

      This is essentially the same thing. Erotica had taken over Romance in general and other non-erotica categories, because many of the authors started including multiple explicit sex scenes, but then try and have the book classified in other categories based on the rest of the content. Not everyone is looking for erotica and when they find it in the book they bought under historical romance, or whatever, they complained.

      So as a result, Amazon has responded by pushing the erotica books out of the top-level romance categories, but leaving them in the erotica categories. They haven't been "vanished", Amazon has simply noticed that most people aren't looking for erotica when they're browsing non-erotica-related book categories, so they're not going to advertise it there anymore.

      Short-version: Amazon customers who don't read erotica got tired of it showing up in the categories they do read, so Amazon has fixed their categorizations.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    20. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Um.. the second amendment is guns. Free speech is the first amendment.

      Doh, of course. I guess it would be weird indeed if someone complained that this was a 2nd amendment issue after all.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    21. Re:Nothing to see here.... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying Amazon is necessarily wrong to do this, but it would probably make things much more palatable to at least send an e-mail to those authors explaining why they're re-categorizing their books, instead of just doing so silently. It makes for bad press when they do things like this arbitrarily.

      Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right or a good reason for doing this, but I think they should try to communicate a bit better, given that they have such a dominating position.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    22. Re:Nothing to see here.... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So how does that apply to the rest of the world?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    23. Re:Nothing to see here.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Stop being intentionally obtuse. Various forms of discrimination are illegal in most jurisdictions. Authors of sexually explicit content are not protected from discrimination by private merchants anywhere in the world. Comparing Amazon's (reasonable IMO) policy to Jim Crow and lynching is idiotic and offensive.

    24. Re:Nothing to see here.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No they haven't.

      Cool opinion bro.

    25. Re:Nothing to see here.... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      So, to evaluate the monopoly claims, is Amazon the overwhelming leader (more business than all their competition combined) in a category of commerce?
      Is Amazon using their overwhelming position in a category of commerce to bankroll undercutting competition in a different category of commerce?
      Is Amazon the sole provider of a dominant standard while exploiting that advantage to shape a marketplace?

      Yes. They've put every other major bookstore but one out of business, and the sole remaining at-scale competitor is Barnes and Noble, which just fired most of its store management because it is about to follow Toys'R'Us to oblivion, barring a miracle. At this point they have more business in e-books in particular than all of their competitors put together, they have more business in REGULAR books than all of their competitors put together, and they are rapidly pushing to achieve that sort of market dominance in several other categories if they aren't there already.

      Yes to number two as well. How can they not? Their site sells everything! If you visit it to buy a book, you are cross-sold pen fillers. If you visit it to look for ANYTHING, you get cross-sold EVERYTHING. The money isn't sorted out so that only the money made from selling office supplies in competition with Staples and Office Max is used to fund office supply sales -- money they make in general has allowed them to enter whole new markets. They just bought Whole Foods -- an entirely different, new category of commerce. Did they raise new money to do so? Hell no, they used profits from selling everything else the sell to do so. Is that "undercutting the competition"? Damn skippy. They immediately dropped prices to undercut the competition because they don't have to be instantly profitable, because they can use profits from "everything" to make their new operation competitive and wipe out all the OTHER companies that are trying to get into e.g. internet based grocery delivery, not to mention Harris-Teeter, Food Lion, etc. But HT doesn't have a bookstore or general purpose store that generates profits that can be used to offset losses (if any) chalked up to "undercutting competition".

      And overwhelmingly yes to number three. They "own" the Kindle and all kindle book sales. They have effectively eliminated their only serious competition -- B&N's Nook -- and are about to eliminate B&N itself along with it. Anything B&N sells Amazon sells (plus much more) and Amazon will deliver right to your door. Amazon is even moving towards opening its OWN brick and mortar stores, yet ANOTHER example of it branching out into "different categories of commerce" using money made from its first, internet sales.

      We are at the point where it is entirely plausible that Amazon, unchecked, is going to become THE SOLE retail store in a huge number of markets, and the DOMINANT store in an even huger number. I'm on the board of a small indie bookstore chain -- a handful of stores in CA. If you want to (for example) sell used or rare books, you more or less HAVE to list them on Amazon and allow them to take their cut. More people search for things on Amazon than anywhere else, and for things like rare books especially, you simply aren't likely to show up on the radar of somebody looking for them without far more investment in internet visibility and staff to manage it than a small business is likely to have available or be able to afford. But they can be trained to put them up on Amazon, once you are set up as a "partner".

      Amazon is "easy", and I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good or bad thing, but it is a thing that long since should have been subjected to antitrust action. Dealing with/through them is like doing business with the mob, but without the guns. They don't have to sell you insurance you have to buy to keep them from burning down your store, they just let you stay alive a bit longer than all of the other stores they are putting out of business if yo

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    26. Re:Nothing to see here.... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I don't know who Jim Crow is.
      Look, I was just curious and wanted to obtain more information.
      I find it difficult to differentiate between various types of literature which mostly overlap each other. There's an entire genre of literature containing both violence and sex (there was that well known author during the 80s-90s, I forgot his name, my parents used to read his books when I was a teenager - and I did too without their consent). Now, it's not erotic literature per se but it has plenty of sex scenes. How would that fare against "erotic only" literature? Are they thrown in the same bin? What if there's a "mostly erotic but with some shooting scenes" literature going to be categorized? Will it borrow worst categorization from both subgenres?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:Nothing to see here.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Certainly, and now they're beholden to the whims of a small group of retailers. Except that it isn't a small group, it's one retailer. Can't go across the street to another publisher. Also, publishing companies were much smaller, and the potential to talk to someone and argue about a decision was much higher. (Not that it was ever high, but....)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:Nothing to see here.... by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      I guess it would be weird indeed if someone complained that this was a 2nd amendment issue after all.

      It may yet be. Has anyone checked whether Amazon is hiding erotic guns from searches?

    29. Re:Nothing to see here.... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this, your reply should have the first +6 rating in the history of Slashdot :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  3. Curation for Quality by Galaga88 · · Score: 1

    Or they're filtering out low effort sleaze so that their browsing/recommendation system is usable.

    The same problem has hit my local library. Browsing their ebook collection is an exercise in clicking through six million low-effort pieces of trash.

  4. Re:Alternative Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Amazon sacrificing erotic authors in attempt to placate the Orange one in response to his tweet.

    My brain just automatically translates that to read "Amazon women sacrificing erotic authors... "

  5. Cat got my tongue? That should be banned erotica! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I'm with Playboy. There's something wrong with sexual prudishness holding sway in all these giant Internet companies.

    Religious folk would be happy, while '60s hippies aghast after their efforts at the sexual revolution.

    Two days ago on the CNN home page, the Playboy story was literally right next to the story on Walmart removing Cosmo from checkout line stands, where it has been in supermarkets since I was born.

    Looks like the equivalency of religion and politics, and politics taking over as religion, is deeper, and sadder, than anyone realizes.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. That's a straw man argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody is disputing that point; you've concocted a fake argument so that you can easily dismantle it and look like you've made a point.

  7. In the butt by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

    They best not try to bury the great Chuck Tingle, author of such books as, Space Raptor Butt Invasion, which is book one of the Space Raptor Butt Trilogy. His earlier work, such as Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt are already classics. However, his newer work, such as the speculative Slammed In The Butthole By My Concept Of Linear Time is not quite as good as his earlier work.

    https://www.amazon.com/Space-R...

    https://www.amazon.com/Slammed...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:In the butt by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      He should thank his lucky stars he was slammed in the butthole by linear time, rather than a Time Cube.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  8. Alternative Fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hillary lost the election.

  9. Re:Alternative Theory by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Funny

    My brain just automatically translates that to read "Amazon women sacrificing erotic authors... "

    Sounds delicious. Is this book illustrated, or...?

    Umm, asking for a friend.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  10. There are two categories... by ITapeFatCashews · · Score: 1

    It's not unsual for an author to categorize an erotica book as a romance book to get more visibility. Not surprising that explicit books are being recharacterized as erotica.

  11. Loved reading these two /. headlines by gachunt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I read

    " Amazon is Burying Sexy Books, Sending Erotic Novel Authors to the 'No-Rank Dungeon' "

    ... then ...

    " President Trump Slams Amazon For 'Causing Tremendous Loss To the United States' "

  12. Amazon Safe by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Amazon needs a Safe Mode.

    1. Re:Amazon Safe by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      or a safe word?

  13. Restricted Listings? by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    Maybe Amazon should consider a separate listing for Erotics? With the Internet, I'm sure there's customer demand for this kinda of stuff so why not setup a separate restricted group.

    1. Re:Restricted Listings? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They could set up a second shop on www.amazon.xxx

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Restricted Listings? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      So, you mean, like having entire categories of various erotica on their site? Like they do? Like these books still rank in?

      All they did was remove the erotica which had been pushed by authors/publishers into non-erotica categories from those non-erotica categories, because their customers don't like buying what they think is historical fiction to find it full of explicit reverse-harem dungeon scenes. They still have erotica categories which the erotica books are listed in and rank in based on their sales and reviews.

      i.e. Nothing to see here....

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  14. Sex sells? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Worldly advice has always been sex sells ... well, may be not.

    Time to get out of the dirt and darkness and embrace Jesus.

  15. That's not the issue here by Solandri · · Score: 2

    The issue is that porn is one of those businesses where the producers will seek out and try new methods of distribution long before the mainstream does. Essentially Bezos used erotic novel authors to help jumpstart amazon.com (Amazon began as an online bookstore). Now that it's branched out and grown big enough that Bezoes doesn't feel he needs them anymore, he's burying them. It is literally climbing on the backs of other people to haul yourself up into a dominant position, then discarding them. Decent people don't do that. They acknowledge those who helped them rise up to success, and even give them a helping hand in the future (I scratch your back, you scratch mine). I'd been hoping Bezos was better than this, but it's sounding like he's just another Gates, Jobs, or Ellison (take as much as you can, and discard the person once they lose their usefulness).

    This is all so simple to fix without taking the drastic step Amazon seems to have taken (based on the summary - TFA won't load in my browser due to some script it's trying to run). You flag all products which could be considered adult. Then you add a "hide adult content" setting in the account settings and set it to On by default, and let the user decide whether to leave it on or turn it off. The physical analogy is a room in the back of the video rental store where you put all the adult videos, and customers can decide for themselves whether or not to go into that room.

    1. Re:That's not the issue here by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Amazon already has the "adult setting" for Adult Novelties|Toys aka "Health and Wellness."

  16. another byproduct of the gutting of safe harbor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a lot of sites are removing or downgrading 'sexy' and 'offensive' content in the wake of the feds recent gutting of safe harbor provisions.

  17. Re:Cat got my tongue? That should be banned erotic by iampiti · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the west fewer people may be religious nowadays but the mechanisms that undelie religions still operate on people and so we get this new wave of morality

  18. No wonder..... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    It's no wonder Trump is angry at Amazon now!

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:No wonder..... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The lust-filled landlord ran his short, pudgy fingers over the porn star's rubbery, spheroid br-

      Ugh, I just threw up a little. I quit.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  19. Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by dr_canak · · Score: 1

    True to the spirit of slashdot, I did not read the entire piece. But this stands out:

    âoeThere's no way for an indie author to make a living without Amazon, so whatever nonsense they decide they're pulling this month is just one other thing we've got to put up with,â Trout said."

    How was an indie author making it before Amazon? And where does it say Amazon has to ensure the business vitality of all writers? As others have said, they are a private business, and can conduct their business accordingly. If some indie writer of romance and erotica can no longer make a living writing this stuff, because Amazon's proprietary algorithms no longer rank these things, then boo-hoo. Amazon isn't there to entitle you to making a living the way you want to. This just seems to be much ado about nothing.

    1. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "How was an indie author making it before Amazon? And where does it say Amazon has to ensure the business vitality of all writers?"

      This has nothing to do with ensuring the business vitality of anyone and everything to with amazon censorship practices... people choose amazon because of convenience and technical capabilities almost nobody voting for Amazon with their dollar realizes that Amazon applies censorship in broad strokes.

    2. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, heaven forbid that a company wouldn't want to indiscriminantly bombard its customers with porn that they weren't looking for. What a world.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      only governments censor. businesses don't have to sell
      a particular type of book if they don't want to, or they can choose to put it under the counter until a customer someone goes "wink wink nudge nudge knowwhatimean"

    4. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      How was an indie author making it before Amazon?

      They weren't. Self-publishing was a money loser for virtually everyone until Amazon provided the audience and platform. Of course, providing the audience and platform makes it no longer really self-publishing or indie, but simply publishing through Amazon, which happens to have almost no editorial standards unlike other publishers.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "only governments censor."

      Patently false. That's like saying only governments can unjustly execute someone. I think you are confusing the matter with the legal restriction preventing government from censoring free speech. That is only one very limited example of censorship.

      Just because businesses can legally censor some things or engage in any particular behavior today doesn't mean they have to be allowed to do so tomorrow. Further, there is nothing a business is legally allowed to do which grants them any protection from people not liking that decision, raising awareness, and proposing someone else prop up a competing solution minus that behavior to wipe the floor with them in the free market.

      If the behavior is morally reprehensible, like attempting to shove moral or religious ideals down the throats of customers using their service, awareness is raised, and somehow that business isn't losing in the "free" market, the most likely explanation is an illegal monopoly in which case the rules very much change with regard to what a business is permitted to do by us..

      Legally Amazon can censor their selections (although with some content served through prime this may be an illegal bait and switch since Amazon does so silently) and I a healthy young man can take the last flu shot when there is a pregnant woman in line behind me but people have every right to call either of us out on this behavior and people have even more right to call out Amazon abusing them since they are paying for the privilege.

    6. Re:Is it Amazon's job to keep writers in business? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the word literary came from a person in government whose job it was to uphold public morals and remove material. censorship is an act of government.

      businesses ought to be able to sell what the owners choose, anything else is evil and tyranny.

      "morally reprehensible", that's a matter of someone's opinion only

      your story about flu shots and pregnant women is laughable, maybe you valiantly let the pregnant woman get the shot, and then go to infect ten other pregnant women at work.

  20. A serious competitor to amazon is needed... by shaitand · · Score: 1

    They are growing massive and most people using their services don't know anything about their massive and widespread censorship practices. People are choosing them based on convenience and technical capabilities with no idea they are engaging in these practices.

  21. Strange Coincidence by deesine · · Score: 1

    Just some months ago Amazon started selling sex toys.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  22. Re:Erotica for Evangelicals. by PPH · · Score: 1

    Ezekiel 23:20

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. what was happening by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What was happening previously was that racy books were showing up for searches for normal books, often absurdly unrelated searches. They were gaming the searches like it was the early days of Google.

    I don't know if Amazon was weighting the sales numbers too highly in their algorithm or what, but even quite specific searches for normal topics might have the bizarre racy results showing higher than strongly selling normal books.

    So I say, good: it's about time.

    If this is a problem somehow, then fine, give us an easy, prominent account setting to say "no smut". Then go back to your old algorithms to your heart's content.

    But something was not right before, in any case.

    1. Re:what was happening by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Finally, a sensible and measured comment.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:what was happening by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

      Here is a search result for "python" from March 2017:

      https://i.imgur.com/cykiLOi.pn...

      One of these things is not like the others.

  24. the latest Chuck Tingle phatasmagoria: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "POUNDED IN THE BUTT (tm) by Sexy Books buried in the Amazon No-Rank DUNGEON"!


    That one's free Chuck, it's immediately obvious to any skilled practitioner in the field...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. It's too easy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    No rank? No wank.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  26. This isn't new, Amazon discriminates all the time by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

    A handful of the "noticed" times that Amazon has discriminated against "sex."
    2009 - Amazon Culls Offensive Books from Search System
    2010 - Amazon Taking Down Erotica Removing from Kindles
    2013 - Books with Questionable Content Being Deleted from eBookstores in Sweeping Ban
    2015 - How Amazons Monster Erotica Book Ban Shaped Cloudflares Censorship Stance

    An ongoing attempt to remove anything "too sexy" from general search, or outright bans of fringe content.

  27. Not their first act of censorship by SteWhite · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember this, back in 2011?

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    They decided to stop selling Yaoi manga. For anyone not aware of the term, it's male homo-erotic manga. However, they didn't stop selling Yuri - the female equivalent with homosexual relationships between women instead of men.

    It struck me at the time as blatant homophobia on the part of Amazon, I never bought any yaoi or yuri from them in the first place, but after that (and various other shady practices, like their remote deletion of copies of 1984 that people had bought on Kindle) I stopped using Amazon at all.

    Now you can of course argue that it's their business, and they are free to sell or not sell whatever they choose - and that's absolutely fine by me, in fact I'd disagree if you tried to force their hand in terms of what they can sell or not. By the same token though, I'm free to buy from them, or not. I don't.

  28. Filters by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    I'm not a prude but I'm never going to buy one, Why can't I just set my Amazon user profile so they never offer them to me? Of course, romance books are almost as bad. A romance with a spaceship in it is not science fiction, it's just a subcategory of romance. A romance where the heroine using Celtic magic to transport herself back and forth to her lover in ancient Scotland is not fantasy, it is just a subcategory of romance. Romances with private investigators in them (notice how I didn't use the slang term for a detective to get a cheap laugh?) are still romances. Tired of all the romances clogging up my searches (and the top 100 lists) for books I want to read. Maybe Amazon just needs a way to let us filter out covers with hairless male torsos on them?

  29. Walmart by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    There was a piece on Australian TV about Walmart removing Cosmopolitan magazine from the shelves. It seems the group that pestered them into it were masquerading as part of the #MeToo movement but they had recently undergone a name change, and were actually another right wing religious organization riding on #MeToo's coat tails.

    I wonder if there's something like that going on here? Maybe some nasty little group of religious bigots is harassing Amazon behind the scenes.

  30. Re:President Pussygrabber's Family Values by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    well Nixon was the first to embrace the Southern religionist bigots in 1968 with his "southern strategy"

  31. Re:Alternative Theory by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

    No, they've been doing this for a while now. Seriously, they've been doing it to me and my book, The Book of Lilith, for a long time. Go to Amazon, search for it by name. Chances are it won't show up at all -- because they at some point decided it was "erotica". Which it absolutely is not. It has sex in it. It is a mature themed book -- the whole Lilith legend is about sex and gender relationships. But it is not porn, or erotica. I had it classified as SF&F, which is much closer to what it is, mythopoeic fantasy.

    As a consequence, you have to a) Search by a string as explicit as "The Book of Lilith by Robert Brown", and when you do THAT you still don't see it, you only get "Your search contains adult items which have been hidden. If you wish to see them, Show all results". Finally, if you click that, Amazon reveals to you that I've written a book! Oh! You can buy it!

    In the meantime, it NEVER shows up on a search of Lilith related material. Half of these books are filled with erotic vampire scenes. Some are outright porn. But MY book has been classified without my knowledge or consent as erotica, and has vanished from everybody except people BROWSING for porn, who sadly aren't as likely to buy a book that is not, in fact, porn.

    So all that is happening now is that the fact that they've been doing this for years now is finally coming to light. Maybe because of Trump, more likely because people are finally getting pissed enough to BRING this blatent, irresponsible, and unguided censorship to light.

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  32. It's just . . . by hawk · · Score: 1

    . . . 50 Shades of Obscurity

    !!

    hawk