#Amazonfail - a quick overview

Twitterers and bloggers have been abuzz over #Amazonfail these past few days. So, if you've missed out because you were with friends and family, outside breathing fresh air or otherwise not glued to the twitter updates, here's a quick summary. *edit* And here is another great summary of the situation from a bookselling/public relations perspective.

First Twitter= a network of mini-blogs. Users follow individuals and institutions they're interested in and receive updates - short 140 character postings detailing current status (enjoying a great lunch at Sir Ben's); links to interesting sites or news items (click http://bit.ly/6CBRo for more information on #Amazonfail); re-tweets (reposting someone else's posting); and replies @username.

The # is used to precede a topic that is then more readily searchable through Twitter, so you can go to Twitter.com and search for the diverse conversation threads surrounding the topic of #Amazonfail.

Adding FAIL as a suffix (actually attached or just following) is a trendy way of saying that something has significantly fallen short of the perceived objectives. Misspellings in signs, funny mishaps caught on film, etc.

The actual controversy (in an extremely condensed nutshell): Amazon makes books with "adult" content harder to find and sometimes (somehow...) removes them from the sales ranking. If you're looking for something specific, you're still likely to find it, but you're not very likely to come upon it by cyber-browsing or relying on their algorithms to find a book you might like. It sounds like a responsible enough policy. Then people started noticing that LGBTQ content was being "removed/processed" under this "policy" while Playboy and other "adult" content featuring or catering toward a heterosexual (and predominantly male) sexuality was still showing up in the sales rankings and browsing. Thus segregating and de facto censoring LGBTQ content. Some say that feminist theory books were included. Twitter postings and re-tweets abounded. Blogs were both hastily written and thought through and written.

As of my writing right now, I'm unaware of the final say: Amazon claims it's a "glitch" they're fixing. Many in the LGBTQ community see it as discriminatory policy enacted to make non-hetero-conforming sexuality even less visible than it already is. Some accuse tech-savvy(ish) conservatives of recognizing the adult material policy and systematically tagging literature they view as subversive to be "adult."

In any which way, it is a demonstration of why no one entity should be given the control over the distribution of so many diverse voices and viewpoints. So, with no accusation nor malice, I invite you to use this as an opportunity to consider how many algorithms and single-company policies you've allowed to make selections for you rather than speaking to a friend, colleague or someone who dedicates themselves to the sale of a particular media in an independent store that specializes in a media and may be very close to your community (like, say maybe an independent bookseller!)

Search books, bookstores and many many things independent at IndieBound.org.

Authors, Publishers, Bloggers, Organizations, etc...: you're NOT tied to amazon either. There's no reason for you to be at the mercy of their rankings, policies, algorithms or glitches. Become an IndieBound.org Affiliate!