About the Amazon.com debaucle
Apr. 14th, 2009 09:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesThere's one thing nobody has yet explained to me about Amazon.com's really idiotic decisions to strip rankings from erotic and GLBT books and to censor search results.
Okay, I get it. Amazon.com probably got nasty letters from conservative nutbags saying "you show gay/sex content! You'll harm the children, and I'll have to actually monitor my children's online activities instead of getting to watch Dr. Phil! Waaaaah! You must bend over backwards to please me!"
But why do this? It's, like, the stupidest possible solution ever.
Especially since less offensive solution is readily at hand. Do what Google does. Allow users to set their "safety" level for searches. Allow parental controls of what can be seen. Easy as that. Then people who complain about content they don't like can be directed to the place where they can filter their own results without filtering what everyone else on the planet sees.
What bothers me is the entitlement inherent in such complaints.
Don't agree with same-sex marriage or the GLBT community? Fair enough. Don't marry/date/fuck someone who's the same gender you are and you should be in compliance with both your conscience and your religion. But thinking you have a right to force other people to live that way is sickeningly arrogant and wrong. My conscience and my religion tell me that same-sex relationships are exactly as sacred and right and beautiful in the eyes of my God as heterosexual one. I am entitled to practice my religious beliefs legally, as are you.
Don't like certain things on television? Good for you. Turn off the goddamn television. You know if every person who was offended at something their kids saw on television channeled the energy they spend bitching into turning off the TV and taking their kids to the park or reading them a book they do approve of, or just spending time with them face to face, we'd have such a healthy society. We really would.
Let's not even start on how I feel about what a wonderful world we'd live in if the amount of money that organizations channel into protesting and politics was redirected into feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and elderly. What if these same people gave a dollar for every time they bitched about "how bad society is" to a charity that makes society better? What if they donated an hour of time a week, or one Saturday a month helping out somewhere? What if they pledged to go a month without TV and spend the evenings eating dinner and playing games with their kids and maybe getting some exercise?
Okay, I get it. Amazon.com probably got nasty letters from conservative nutbags saying "you show gay/sex content! You'll harm the children, and I'll have to actually monitor my children's online activities instead of getting to watch Dr. Phil! Waaaaah! You must bend over backwards to please me!"
But why do this? It's, like, the stupidest possible solution ever.
Especially since less offensive solution is readily at hand. Do what Google does. Allow users to set their "safety" level for searches. Allow parental controls of what can be seen. Easy as that. Then people who complain about content they don't like can be directed to the place where they can filter their own results without filtering what everyone else on the planet sees.
What bothers me is the entitlement inherent in such complaints.
Don't agree with same-sex marriage or the GLBT community? Fair enough. Don't marry/date/fuck someone who's the same gender you are and you should be in compliance with both your conscience and your religion. But thinking you have a right to force other people to live that way is sickeningly arrogant and wrong. My conscience and my religion tell me that same-sex relationships are exactly as sacred and right and beautiful in the eyes of my God as heterosexual one. I am entitled to practice my religious beliefs legally, as are you.
Don't like certain things on television? Good for you. Turn off the goddamn television. You know if every person who was offended at something their kids saw on television channeled the energy they spend bitching into turning off the TV and taking their kids to the park or reading them a book they do approve of, or just spending time with them face to face, we'd have such a healthy society. We really would.
Let's not even start on how I feel about what a wonderful world we'd live in if the amount of money that organizations channel into protesting and politics was redirected into feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and elderly. What if these same people gave a dollar for every time they bitched about "how bad society is" to a charity that makes society better? What if they donated an hour of time a week, or one Saturday a month helping out somewhere? What if they pledged to go a month without TV and spend the evenings eating dinner and playing games with their kids and maybe getting some exercise?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 01:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 02:02 pm (UTC)But thinking you have a right to force other people to live that way is sickeningly arrogant and wrong.
You forgot "and filled a sense of entitlement these fuckwits have done fuck all to earn, in most cases."
It stunned me, although really, it shouldn't, given the fuckwittery, that on an ABCnews.com article about it, in the comments, some guy was braying about how offended he was that the picture in the background accompanying the article was of two shirtless men hugging. Because, y'know, it was sick and perverted and wrong. And he demanded that ABCnews.com take it down NOW.
Fuckwit.
(no subject)
From: