FIY NP

[HMus]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Millison" <millison at online-journalist.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:30 PM


> At 8:44 PM -0500 5/4/00, HMus wrote:
> >Amazon's denial is more moral than technical: they host the reader
reviews,
> >making them available, just like a store or library does. Were they to
send
> >them out in email &/or newsletters, they would be publishing it; it is
the
> >writer of the review who in this case publishes it. If they wrote such a
> >review themselves, then they would be the publishers.
>
> I beg to differ. Amazon.com is not a "public bulletin board", it's a
> business that sells books (and many other products); it publishes all
kinds
> of stuff it thinks will help sell those books and other products.

See above for thoughts on who is publishing what. That Amazon.com is a
business doesn't make it's display of reader reviews any less of a public
bulletin board than the many that are on other sites that you can access for
free and that also show banner ads. Public does not mean non-commercial.

> Amazon.com publishes customer comments on its Web site in the same way
that
> a newspaper (online or print) publishes  letters to the editor from its
> readers. Similarly, PYNCHON-L publishes the messages contributed by
> subscribers. I can write book reviews all day long, but nobody at
> Amazon.com is going to be able to read them unless Amazon.com chooses to
> publish them.

I hope that your more academic writings are better researched. "Amazon.com
enables visitors to its site to post reviews, comments, and other content to
the site. " Far from choosing to publish, isn't it?

>
> >Would you ask them to censor the one ignorant review out of seven
customer
> >reviews displayed on what is in effect a public bulletin board? Should
the
> >P-List be held accountable for the unpleasantness and general, stubborn
> >disagreeability of one of the people who post on it? <g>
>
> In fact, in the past, I have argued that the P-list become a moderated
> discussion list, in which not every post would automatically be published,
> as part of an effort to make the P-list a place where serious discussion
of
> Pynchon's work might once again flourish and engage the participation of
> people who currently choose not to take part because of the mud that gets
> slung from time to time. Each time I, or anybody else, has made this
> suggestion, it's been roundly rejected, often with the "list Nazi" label
> liberally applied, and the freewheeling discussion has continued, albeit
> without the participation of Usenetphobic scholars and other serious
> readers who choose not to expose themselves to the often rude manners of
> this forum. The discussion suffers as a result, I believe; I understand
> that some of you don't agree with me on this point, and that's fine, too.
I
> continue to participate -- and even to take part in the back-and-forth on
> occasion, as appropriate -- all the same. At the same time I regret the
> absence of those who have left the P-list because serious contributions
> have in the past so often met with boorish comments or ridicule.

And just who would be the moderator? The criteria? If we were to censor
vitriol, you'd be without a soapbox. There. So would I.

>
> I wouldn't personally ask Amazon.com to do anything. I might choose not to
> buy books or other products from them if I felt they were advocating
> something I didn't agree with

Uh, what is Amazon.com advocating here?

> , just as I choose to honor picket lines or to
> boycott products or services in support of certain political causes.  I'm
> certain I wouldn't buy books in a bookstore that made available -- by
> posting them on the shelf along with the book -- glowing reviews of this
or
> any other work of its ilk.  I'd find a different bookstore and spend my
> money there, and I would probably recommend that my friends do the same.
> They'd remain free to spend their money where they choose, of course.

The medium is the message. The reader's reviews are far from simalar to your
stalking horse above. There are a number of reviews, and the reader's
reviews are labeled as such. Most of them show the PEZ for what are, AS DOES
AMAZON.com's OWN REVIEW. (I'm sorry. Had to shout, apparently.)

>
> Amazon.com is walking a fine line in this case. Amazon.com reserves the
> right to suppress customer reviews of books in some cases (if the reviews
> include  "profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks", for example, as
the
> company plainly states in its review guidelines), and I have to wonder,
why
> not in this case?

Uh, perhaps because the remarks are simply ignorant. No person or group is
profaned.

> Every retailer chooses what inventory it wants to offer
> to customers; I have to wonder, why would Amazon.com choose to sell this
> kind of stuff, and to promote it with this kind of rave review? These are
> legitimate questions that have nothing to do with censorship and
everything
> to do with choice; Amazon.com is not a public library, or educational
> institution, it's a for-profit business.  Does Amazon.com sell blatantly
> pornographic books (the kind you buy in adult bookstores)?  If not, why
> not?  If they choose not  to sell pornography (and some obvious keywords
> don't seem to pull up the kinds of books I'm thinking of from their
catalog
> database), why do they choose to sell anti-semitic books?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have influenced world events and, though
a cruel hoax, are an historic document. I would personally wouldn't buy the
book in order to avoid rewarding the author and publisher, whose intents are
dishonorable and reprehensible. But I would love to have a chance to read
them in order to have a better idea of the genesis of many particulars of
antisemitic thought. Were I a scholar such as yourself, I would value their
availability. FWIW, I believe that TRP would, also.

Henry