Of glitches and fails

By now, news of "Amazon Fail" has hit (some of) the mainstream media and should therefore be common knowledge -- particularly if you're enjoying life amongst the Twitterati. But just in case you haven't heard, let me 'splain. Or rather, let me allow some of the other internet scribes to do the explaining.

Here's a link to the situation, as it was when everyone woke up yesterday morning. And here's a link to a bunch of links containing updates. And here's the #amazonfail Twitter stream. Basically, what's going on is that Amazon had stripped a number of titles of their sales rankings. That means that when you search an author, if one of the books being targeted is among his or her oeuvre, that book will be relegated to the bottom of his or her listing, rather than the top where the "most popular" books pop up first. Now, guess which books are being targeted? Well, it seems that some puritanical Cro Magnon has decided that any book containing "adult" material shouldn't show up at the top of Amazon searches. The real kicker, however, is how the concept of "adult" is being defined by Amazon. In particular, any queer-themed literature has been banished to the deepest recesses of the Amazon search engine. Some actual erotica has been swept up in the downdraft, but mostly, this very handy method of censorship seems to be hand-picking all the good literature with some erotic content and leaving some laughably bad drek in it's slug-slimy trail.

By way of example, debauchette puts it right succinctly:

What constitutes adult content? Apparently classics, like Lady Chatterley’s Lover, as well as non-”adult” texts like Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism. Yet Surrender the Booty 3: The Search for More Arse has been left untouched. Maybe they’re just weeding out the good stuff to keep the bar nice and low.

Nice, huh?

Now, there's conflicting information coming out of Amazon itself. Some of the reports are saying that they were, indeed, trying to keep adult materials--by their definition of "adult"-- off the main page. But now they're calling the stripping of the sales rankings a "glitch." Way to unconvincingly backpedal, Amazon. If it's just a "glitch," I might consider forgiving you. Except...

This isn't the first time the dickcheeses over at Amazon have instituted some deeply problematic policy. About a year ago, just in time to coincide with National Poetry Month, Amazon told all the little micro-presses that, if they wanted to sell their books through Amazon, they had to use Amazon's own print-on-demand service. Now, most micro-presses in this country publish poetry-- the stuff of which I read a lot, but not too many other people do. So, I buy a lot of poetry from small presses off of Amazon because, well, it's Amazon. It's a great one-stop shop that prevents me from having to ferret around all over the internet trying to find the work of poets of my own generation. So, yeah, my main Visa card actually gives me rewards in the form of Amazon gift certificates. I am, literally, a card-carrying Amazon devotee. However, the problem with Amazon forcing micro-presses to use their POD service is trifold: a) Amazon's affiliate is the most expensive POD printer on the market, thus making it cost-prohibitive for many (most) cash-strapped, shoe-string-budgeted micro-presses to sell their wares on Amazon, b) Amazon's POD printer produces books of far lower quality than many other cheaper, smaller POD printers, and c) so many people (like me) prefer to get all their small-press-published books from one place that many micro-presses can't afford not to sell their books on Amazon. So, the people behind these little presses, who bring important work to us out of the goodness of their hearts-- knowing full well they'll spend more money on than they'll make through their literary capitalist ventures--are essentially caught with Amazon's fat, bulbous thumbs up their asses. That ain't cool, Amazon. Particularly when you didn't ask permission first.

So, last year, when Amazon enacted this POD policy, the small community of small-press publishers raised a tiny, squeaky amount of internet hell. They called for a boycott that clearly did not cause so much as a mosquito bite on the sweaty skin of this particular Goliath. But now, with this Amazon sales-rank-stripping fiasco, a whole lot more folks are up in arms. The good news is that the angry folks have some organizations who'll probably be willing back up a real boycott. The queer community is nothing if not organized these days-- certainly much moreso than the kinkster community and the sexy-lit nerd community (Ok, we don't actually have a community. It's just us and our flashlights and our vibrators under the covers, alone on Saturday evenings in apartments where there's no room for sofas amidst the bookshelves.).

But ultimately, I don't think a boycott's really going to hurt Amazon too much. They sell too many things besides books at this point. They're simply too big and too good at what they do for large factions of their customer base to be able to resist the the siren call of books discounted 32% and free shipping for purchases over $25. No, boycotting won't get 'em where it hurts.

The only thing that I can imagine have an wounding effect is getting the attention of that other monolith, The Mainstream Media. We're well on our way-- the LA times has been reporting on this mess ever since the first #amazonfail hashtag appeared on Twitter. In the meantime, I'm doing my part by answering anti-censorship-minded blogger-targeted calls-to-arms like this one, and contributing to the googlebomb "Amazon Rank."

I strongly encourage any of my readers who have internet presences of any variety (a Facebook page works as well as anything, guys!) who don't think queer lit should hang its head in shame and hide in corners, who don't think people should be prevented from reading the smut of their choice-- high- or low-brow, and who think censorship is one of the greatest hobgoblins to emerge from the putrid cauldron human civilization, to follow suit and link to the Amazon Rank googlebombing campaign, just like I have.

Please. Amazon does not want bad press. A negative news story on your morning news show of choice will create a de facto boycott that will trump whatever organized queertopia could possibly establish, I promise.

Go get your googlebomb on. I mean it, now. Shoo!

UPDATE: For good measure, I'm gonna go ahead and link the pretty dumb things post on the same topic. Chelsea G., as always, says some wise and witty things, and her post is also a good source of links for more information. Bon appetite!.