Ok. So it was recently pointed out to me that one of my all-time favorite social networks, Last.fm, was home to a number of neo-nazi groups, and were listing neo-nazi, white power, etc, oriented bands in their music catalog. What's a peace-loving, granola munching Skinny Puppy fan to do? My first reaction was that I didn't want to be associated with anything that gave a voice to this sort of hate-mongering, and I still feel very strongly about that. I decided I was going to vacate the premeses, with a quick note to my friends and a polite but disappointed email to the administrators of said network, and after a lot of flip-flopping and thinking it over, I started writing.
I expected to get a few replies, and was rather shocked at the amount of response I got. Everyone was very polite, and very kindly sorry to see me go, but the general opinion was pretty much unanimous- how can I say I support the right to free speech if I don't extend that to include nazis, even if they are completely retarded shitheads. Was I not contradicting myself? Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but the short answer is: Yes, I was.
All of you are pretty much dead-on. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, all the freedoms I purport to defend, are meaningless if I don't extend them to include everyone, even those who exploit that freedom in an effort to deprive others of it. I let my disgust get the better of me this time, and it nearly made a hypocrite of me, so thanks to all of you who pointed that out to me.
So my decision is this: I plan to keep my Last.fm account (which, to be perfectly honest I was REALLY loathe to delete). I also plan to write an email to Last.fm expressing my deep unhappiness at the presence of these hate-groups (for that is what they are), because expressing my opinion of things is MY right, too. My problem with these groups is that their belief system is oriented toward denying the basic human rights of others, based on misinformation, hatred and lies. Should anyone be able to say whatever they want, even if it's harmful to others, and without any basis in fact? I honestly don't know, and that's where I get into this gray area and start feeling like I'm contradicting myself. Right at the moment, I think I'm making the best choice, and feel like my earlier decision was hasty and not thought through enough.
So there you have it. Thanks to everyone who wrote back to me. Feel free to write again. What do you think now? Am I making the right decision? Or am I just a schizo? I'm thinking the latter, but at least I feel a little better. For now... :P
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Amazon's Big Gay Fail
Ok, so this has been the hottest subject of the day and has been talked/Tweeted/blogged to death already, I know, but, dammit, I haven't been inspired to write about anything since January, and the stupidity factor in this story is just too high to be ignored, so here's where I open my mouth for awhile. If you're already sick of the story, you don't have to read me, but you're also not as concerned as you ought to be about your First Amendment rights.
So here's the way I see this: Back in February (and some now say even as far back as August 2008), several authors of gay-themed literature realized their books had been stripped of sales rank on Amazon. This effectively makes them harder to search, and in turn that hurts their overall sales. When the authors inquired about the change, they were told by Amazon execs that the books had been classified as 'adult' material as part of a company policy change' and adult material would not be ranked. Interestingly, this extended to ALL books with a gay, lesbian or bisexual theme, including such classics of porn as "Heather Has Two Mommies," by Leslea Newman, a children's book that deals with a little girl growing up raised by her biological mother and her lesbian partner, as well as the autobiography of Ellen Degeneres...pretty raunchy stuff, eh? Meanwhile, such family fare as "Ron Jeremy: The Hardest (Working) Man in Show Business" maintained it's ranked status. Apparently since Ron wasn't playing Flagpole Sitta with the boys on poker night he's ok. My point is that there is a clear pattern of witch-huntery here.
Amazon's answer to this has been to waffle, back-pedal and clutch at any available straw to lay the blame anywhere but at their own feet. First, a computer glitch was blamed. It must have been quite a sophisticated glitch to send out personalized emails to authors whose books had been effected, and signing the names of company execs. There are a million holes in this story, but the plainest one of all is that software is useful, software is flexible, software is adaptable...but software is not bigoted unless someone programs it to be.
Now to the rescue comes the self-styled "hacker," who claims he engineered the whole thing by creating a script that exploits the fact that a small number of consumer complaints can flag a book as inappropriate, and the book will be automatically stripped of it's rank. Even if this were true, (which I sincerely doubt) and not the opportunistic boast of a delusional wannabe, the fact that it's even possible for a small number (or even a single determined person) to have this sort of influence in deciding what's appropriate for us unwashed masses to see and read is a serious fuck-up on the part of Amazon. This basically means that if I and ten of my closest friends decide that Harold and the Purple Crayon is a thinly-veiled tale of sodomy with writing utensils, we can flag it on Amazon and presto! it will lose it's ranking also. How stupid is that?
So to put it simply, no, I don't buy it. Not a glitch. Not a hack. Not an "error" as they are now insisting. And not a penny more will I spend with them until I hear some truth. What annoys me the most is how hard it is for these people, company execs, politicians, celebrities, what have you, to just throw up their hands and say "Look, we made a very poor, very ill-considered decision, but we've heard you, the public, we accept responsibilty for our mistake and we apologize for any offense that was given. Every effort will be made to correct this problem immediately." Problems should be investigated, causes rooted out, errors should be corrected, and, if warranted, heads should roll. Instead they insult our intelligence by making excuses, generating spin and pointing fingers at anything and anyone but themselves. Am I the only one that would just like to be told the truth for a change?
Censorship is the most objectionable material of all.
So here's the way I see this: Back in February (and some now say even as far back as August 2008), several authors of gay-themed literature realized their books had been stripped of sales rank on Amazon. This effectively makes them harder to search, and in turn that hurts their overall sales. When the authors inquired about the change, they were told by Amazon execs that the books had been classified as 'adult' material as part of a company policy change' and adult material would not be ranked. Interestingly, this extended to ALL books with a gay, lesbian or bisexual theme, including such classics of porn as "Heather Has Two Mommies," by Leslea Newman, a children's book that deals with a little girl growing up raised by her biological mother and her lesbian partner, as well as the autobiography of Ellen Degeneres...pretty raunchy stuff, eh? Meanwhile, such family fare as "Ron Jeremy: The Hardest (Working) Man in Show Business" maintained it's ranked status. Apparently since Ron wasn't playing Flagpole Sitta with the boys on poker night he's ok. My point is that there is a clear pattern of witch-huntery here.
Amazon's answer to this has been to waffle, back-pedal and clutch at any available straw to lay the blame anywhere but at their own feet. First, a computer glitch was blamed. It must have been quite a sophisticated glitch to send out personalized emails to authors whose books had been effected, and signing the names of company execs. There are a million holes in this story, but the plainest one of all is that software is useful, software is flexible, software is adaptable...but software is not bigoted unless someone programs it to be.
Now to the rescue comes the self-styled "hacker," who claims he engineered the whole thing by creating a script that exploits the fact that a small number of consumer complaints can flag a book as inappropriate, and the book will be automatically stripped of it's rank. Even if this were true, (which I sincerely doubt) and not the opportunistic boast of a delusional wannabe, the fact that it's even possible for a small number (or even a single determined person) to have this sort of influence in deciding what's appropriate for us unwashed masses to see and read is a serious fuck-up on the part of Amazon. This basically means that if I and ten of my closest friends decide that Harold and the Purple Crayon is a thinly-veiled tale of sodomy with writing utensils, we can flag it on Amazon and presto! it will lose it's ranking also. How stupid is that?
So to put it simply, no, I don't buy it. Not a glitch. Not a hack. Not an "error" as they are now insisting. And not a penny more will I spend with them until I hear some truth. What annoys me the most is how hard it is for these people, company execs, politicians, celebrities, what have you, to just throw up their hands and say "Look, we made a very poor, very ill-considered decision, but we've heard you, the public, we accept responsibilty for our mistake and we apologize for any offense that was given. Every effort will be made to correct this problem immediately." Problems should be investigated, causes rooted out, errors should be corrected, and, if warranted, heads should roll. Instead they insult our intelligence by making excuses, generating spin and pointing fingers at anything and anyone but themselves. Am I the only one that would just like to be told the truth for a change?
Censorship is the most objectionable material of all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
