Weighing in on the #amazonfail issue.
Just in case you haven't heard by now, this gives a good account of events. Well, it would since it's the blog post by Mark R. Probst, sometime author, that broke the story.
Oh, and the Publisher's Weekly news item in which Amazon claims this is a 'glitch' can be found here.
Three things.
First, this whole debacle says a hell of a lot about the power of the Internet and, more specifically, that delightful little thing called Twitter that we've all come to know and, um, ____ (feel free to fill in the blank). Awareness of the issue is spreading like wildfire thanks to a simple series of oft-heated status updates and the all important hashtag. Some wise young whipper-snapper thought up of the term 'amazonfail', tagged their Tweet about the event with it (#amazonfail) and within around 24 hours, it's become the most popular search item/tag on the site. The 'buzz', if you will (I loathe using the term but hey ho, it's probably the most appropriate one), is everywhere. It's filtering through to some news sites and, as it continues to gather momentum, will undoubtedly be reported in the mainstream media in the not-too-distant future. In fact, a quick Yahoo! news search gives this article which rather conveniently fails to mention Amazon's initial response to Probst's inquiry, and slants the story in favour of the 'glitch' explanation. Personally, I think it's quite remarkable and somewhat empowering to see the public influencing the media in this way, although it's worth remembering the points made in a recent edition of Charlie Brooker's Newswipe pertaining to the over-saturation of the news with 'our opinions'. Lest we forget the concept of vigilantism and all its inherent dangers.
Second, well, this all seems rather fishy. If it is simply a glitch in the system, as Amazon now seems to be assuring us, why did Probst receive a justificatory response when he made his inquiry? Why did the organisation bother to explain the methodology (quite intricately, it should be noted) behind the decision to classify his material as 'adult'? And why have other authors who have also inquired received similar responses? It's not difficult to see why virtually everyone involved in this mess has trouble accepting the latest explanation from the bigwigs at the website. It smells rather pungently of a hasty backtrack and has led, somewhat amusingly, to the blossoming of another Twitter hashtag: #glitchmyass. It hasn't caught on quite as strongly as #amazonfail but it's early days yet. Alternative explanations abound within the (spit) blogosphere, including this bafflingly popular and virtually incomprehensible piece that essentially argues that one or two shenanigans-minded trolls (not the literal kind, the 'netslang kind) have set about orchestrating this mess in order to pit a community (in this case, the LGBT) against a company (Amazon), just so that they can get their rocks off. "It's happened before!," the article cries, choking on its own paranoia. "Oh really?" everyone else mutters, switching on their interweb's 'sanity' filter. No, it is this blog entry that seems to offer the most sensible analysis and, in so doing, reminds us all that while the removal of gay and lesbian material from the website's search engine is certainly objectionable, and hints at a form of bias (whether from the organisation itself or an anti-gay group manipulating the 'tagging' function), we can all still buy the damn things, whether from this site or any number of others whose search engines have not been subjected to such monumental failures. I mean, just how good IS Amazon, anyway? The prices are nothing to gawp at, they charge for postage and packing and since when did any self-respecting, LGBT-literature loving individual find that they could only use IT to find out about the latest releases? There's plenty of alternatives out there. Cry 'foul!' at Amazon sure, but as Girlinacage points out, it would be wise to remember that, 'we did this, folks. We loved the savings, the convenience and the wishlists and all that crap, and we allowed one company to dominate online bookselling.'
Still, it is pretty damn ludicrous that something like The Well of Loneliness is considered 'adult'. 'And that night, they were not divided'... oh my God, the filth! Rate it R, RATE IT R!!
Third, as this rather sage After Elton/Ellen piece illustrates, irrespective of the reasoning, #amazonfail is entirely predicated on popular culture's stereotypical, and regrettable, corrolory of 'gay' with 'sex'. And that's just depressing.
Oh, and one final link before I shut the hell up. How achingly self-reflexive.
No comments:
Post a Comment