You might think the library is one of the few places where items are censored. Information and books with questionable material are subject to review and criticism by people only in a library setting. WRONG.
Amazon.com recently pulled a book from its e-book collection, entitled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover's Code of Conduct. The company was faced with pressure from social networks, who wanted the book banned and not sold.
Initially, Amazon.com advocated the right to sell the e-book, not for its content, but for the right to produce it for people who wished to purchase it. The company claimed it would be censorship to dictate what people could and could not buy at the site.
However, after being challenged by social networks that were openly against the book for its objectionable content, Amazon.com took it off the shelves. Not wanting to lose its customer base, Amazon.com caved to their demands.
I was surprised to read that Amazon.com did not stick to its original statement of keeping the e-book on the virtual shelf. As a private company, it does not have to adhere to government regulation or policy regarding censorship; instead, officials within the corporation set their own policy and agendas.
However, Amazon.com has a reputation to protect, and to stay competitive, it relies on sales from books and other products. If tens of thousands of customers began to openly boycott items from the site, other people would wonder why and questions Amazon.com’s credibility. With the boycott, sales and incoming revenue would decrease because nothing would circulate out of warehouses.
No matter what the customer thought, I think Amazon.com should have fought to keep that book on its virtual shelf. Though the subject of the book is not popular and thought to be heinous by many, it’s the principle of access to information that should be fought for. If one book is taken off the virtual shelf, what will the next one be? A book about suicide? History of terrorisim? Same-sex marriages? The possibilities are endless.
I can now understand why Amazon.com, a private company, would choose to censor its books in this situation. Private organizations rely on consumers to make a profit, and if the consumer is not happy, the private entity rights the wrong. In this case, I guess the customer is always right (even if he or she is wrong).
No comments:
Post a Comment