Things That Don’t Go Away – Tempest in a Tweet
Column | BSCreview Guest | April 18, 2009 at 5:47 am
by Sarah Zettel
I’m going to take a pause from the usual theme of this column, to talk about something that does in fact look to be going away.
I’ll call it the Age of Isolation.
I found myself kicking through the ruins this week on my way to an electronic mob.
Yep, it was in fact the Amazon Thing.
For those of you who don’t know, earlier this week some books on Amazon.com started being stripped of their sales ranking. This is a problem because unranked books are not displayed on the all-important bestseller lists, and/or may not come up as readily during general searches as ranked books. They are, in effect, hidden at the bottom of the electronic pile. But what really lit the fire was that the books this was happening to were ones with GBLT or “adult” themes. And what piled fuel on that fire was that while this was all going on, if you went to Amazon.com and did a search on “gay” what came up was a book on how to cure yourself of being homosexual.
I know there have been other Internet Storms, but this was the first one that I wound up participating in. There I was, on the phone with a friend, while at the same time checking LJ updates and new emails from other writers (which were arriving in batches of six and seven) and chasing down link after link trying to get the straight story from a trustworthy source. All that connection, and all that anger, and no clear picture of what was going on, except that there was a rally happening at the speed of thought. A petition went up, people signed up, means of retaliation were proposed, word was spread, all faster than Amazon could stand up and yell “It was a glitch! A FRENCH GLITCH!”
I did have a feeling it would turn out to be nothing but a screw up gone wild, especially once people started reporting in on how random the de-listings were. Amazon’s a big corporation. If they’re going to implement a major policy shift, they’re going to have thought it out before hand and implement it much more cleanly than what was going on.
But at the time, I mostly felt dizzy. I still do, and I freely admit I’m still trying to sort out exactly what happened here.
Not with Amazon. What happened on Amazon’s end was nothing more or less one of those nightmare mistakes that can happen to a large business.
I’m talking about out in the community, with the readers and the writers. With the Us.
That thousands of people chose to rally around what looked like a censorship agenda that would have directly effected the lives and careers of fellow writers warms the cockles of my heart. But then, I agreed with the cause. What happened could very well have been some major corporate censorship. The owners of a store, of course, has every right to decide what they will and will not sell. Unfortunately, if the store (like, say WalMart) turns out to have a moral agenda that does not include carrying your material, it can have a major impact on a career. If WalMart won’t carry a book, it is more than possible that a publisher will decide not to carry an author. This can make a writer think twice before tackling a subject.
On the other hand, I admit freely, I would not have been nearly so enthusiastic if the books in question had been along the lines of say, oh, The Turner Diaries or Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I will also admit the word “mob,” drifted across my mind more than once while I was out chasing links and trying to assemble a coherent picture of the situation. There were a bunch of us, we were frightened and angry, and we had a target and we were ready to start lighting the torches. People were signing up on the spontaneously generated Twitter list Amazon Fail, in droves. I admit, I was glued to the keyboard. I didn’t want to miss anything, even though I was pretty sure it was just a screw up, I didn’t want to miss anything. I was caught. I was caught up. If there had been anywhere to march to, I probably would have gone. I like to think I wouldn’t have gotten out the pitchfork first, but I’m not entirely sure.
What we have now is not only a huge amount of rapidly available information but the awareness of that availability. That night we had all gotten virtually together to pool our resources to find out what the hell was happening, I real time. We were reaching out for answers, assembling and reassembling information on the fly, creating pictures, creating answers and new rumors as fast as we could type. We were operating on the theory that not only could we find the answer, we could and should do something when we had it.
And as we sat there making our new connections, sending out our new ideas and participating in new solutions, a whole body of old SF suddenly and vividly became alternate history. Seriously. A lot of classic science fiction is based entirely around the idea that information will be controlled, and people will be controlled along with it. It’s central to 1984, and also to Fahrenheit 451. It is, in fact, one of Ray Bradbury’s major themes. He wrote a large number of short stories about the dangers of the passive media and the destruction of the imagination accomplished through the destruction of books and the dominance of television which destroyed even the memory of the stories.
I’ve got to say it’s nice to see at least one form of dystopia become an impossibility. For better and for worse, connection now requires conversation and active participation. People expect the right to respond.
Now, the prediction has been made that because the internet and social networking makes it possible to sub-divide into so many niches, people would just retreat to their own comfy niches and never hear an alternate opinion. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, or, at least, that’s not the only thing that’s happening. A growing number of people are starting to latch onto a subject and seek out all the views they can find on it. Then, once they’ve found and formed views, they get to work recreating and reshaping them.
We don’t have to wait to be told anymore. In fact, we refuse to wait to be told anymore. We’re going out and hunting down that answer. And what we do with it…well, answers are tools and whether tools are good or bad depends on the use you put them to. Now that we all seem to have access to the answers, that’s going to be up to us all to decide.
I don’t have a tidy wrap-up for this one. Only an increased sense that I am living in the future, and, like Yoda told us, it is always in motion.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Tags: #amazonfail, Sarah Zettel, Things that Don't Go Away




Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it


I’m sure the word “mob” crossed everybody’s mind … after reflection, I don’t see it that way.
jon
Amazon’s homophobia here is both obvious and disturbing, but what really worries me out of this whole snafu is the questions it raises about digital censorship and the future of publishing.
Goats – did amazon at the same time derank literature about goats, or anyone of however many classifications exist.
This one was seen and fought.
How many go unseen?
Jon: Why not?
Stephanie & tquft: I don’t agree that this particular case was of deliberate institutional homophobia. I think it was probably something along the lines of an algorhythm designed to keep porn from showing up when people weren’t actually looking for it, and it was badly written and got away from them. The reason I think it wasn’t deliberate is Amazon is capable of doing extremely complex roll-outs of new software products. If they truly wanted to change the way GLBT material was listed, they could have done it much more quickly and much more cleanly. I was watching this while it was going on and it was truly a mess.
I do, however, agree with your other point and it is something that bears watching. It clearly shows the potential for a deliberate policy being implimented.
Now, Amazon of course has the perfect right to sell whatever it wants, however it wants, but, like WalMart it is big enough that its decisions have wide-ranging impacts. And we, of course, have the right, and the obligation to talk about those policies and their impacts.
An AI raised to protect the “common good” is just what we need
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/business/19proto.html?_r=1&hpw
“NetModerator, a software tool built by Crisp Thinking, a private company based in Leeds, England, can monitor online chat “for intent as well as content,” says Andrew Lintell, the company’s chief executive. To build the tool, he says, Crisp Thinking analyzed roughly 700 million lines of chat traffic, some from conversations between children and some, like conversations between children and sexual predators, provided by law enforcement groups.
The software is integrated into a virtual world’s site. If the technology uncovers phrasing, syntax, slang or other patterns in a conversation that match known signs of bullying or sexual predation, it sends an alert to a moderator, ”
Never fear technology is here
Wow. I can’t see _anything_ going wrong with that concept. Nope. Nosireebob.
Internet doesn’t do sarcasm real well.
Down here in Australia we have have the government trying to foist an internet filter on us with a blacklist.
The endless possibilities of technology meets real world can be very ugly.
That is why I had the link handy.
Don’t think it can’t be done – have a look at the technology behind Deep Packet Inspection and the Naurus equipment being used and you can see just how real the possibility is.
Do you have a list of dystopian futures handy? We can start with 1984 and NewSpeak. First the literature is deranked piecemeal to avoid notice. Then communications are sanitised “for the children”. Unless you can use the same technology only major corps or gov’s can afford to watch everything, you may never even see it coming.
Oh, I believe it can be tried. Can it be _done_. That becomes an interesting and non-academic question.
Here’s the thing that keeps 1984 at bay, at least in terms of total censorship; the Internet is a massively decentralized system. Blocking all possible copies and combinations, especially when you can hide things on a thumb drive and move them from computer to computer becomes extraordinarily difficult. Orwell, as much as I respect his points, his social outlook and his writing ability, didn’t know about miniaturization.
The war to keep children safe from ideas is an old one, and this is just a new battle. There are people out there desperately frightened that someone somewhere might be thinking something they don’t agree with. Could such people make things difficult? Yes. Certainly. Should we be on watch against it? As with all censorship, yes, we should.
Could they actually take total control over the sources of information on the internet? Not even the Chinese have managed that. And the US tried the V chip and the spy-chip in the phones and it was a total failure.
At this point, to take the kind of control Orwell posited in 1984, you’d pretty much have to go North Korean and destroy personal computers, and iPods. And cell phones.
IMHO we are in much more danger from people using the new interactive media to spread disinformation about public affairs. Minitruth has got more than weapon.
Re: In response to Amazon’s remote deletion of 1984 and Animal Farm
Hi there,
Saw you’d written about the Amazon / 1984 flap, and I thought you might be
interested in the petition we launched yesterday:
http://defectivebydesign.org/amazon1984
We have over 1400 signatures already, and signers include Lawrence Lessig,
Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow and other notable authors, librarians, and
scholars.
The petition opens:
“We believe in a way of life based on the free exchange of ideas, in which
books have and will continue to play a central role. Devices like Amazon’s
are trying to determine how people will interact with books, but Amazon’s
use of DRM to control and monitor users and their books constitutes a clear
threat to the free exchange of ideas.”
Please have a look, and if you support the cause or think it would be
interesting to your readers, a blog post would be great!
Thanks,
-Holmes Wilson
Free Software Foundation