Blog: Articles filed under news

I quite enjoyed on Easter weekend watching the instantaneous outrage across the Internet, particularly #amazonfail on Twitter, as it became apparent that Amazon had removed sales rankings from books with “adult” content. The outrage stems more from the fact that the application of the “adult” label seems skewed toward books with homosexual content; the heterosexual books are safe. In the ensuing light-speed confusion: Mark R. Probst shared his limited interaction with an Amazon rep, in which the rep revealed the “adult content” policy; the LA Times book blog covers it, then covers it again when sources claim that Amazon has blamed a “glitch”; and some posited it was the result of gaming the system.

Take the time to read the above articles before reading on.

What Definitely Happened

In lieu of any definitive statement from Amazon regarding this debacle, it would be irresponsible to say, “This is what happened.” At best, we have theories. But all theories start with facts. Here are the facts, what we know did happen, even if we don’t know why it happened.

Amazon Has a Safe-Search Policy

As evidenced by Mark Probst’s post, a representative for Amazon has confirmed that there are policies in place to differentiate between “adult” and “non-adult” content and restrict the former content from appearing in some search listing. Apparently, this policy necessarily requires that adult materials have their sales ranks removed, since search listings depend, to some extent, on the sales ranking system.

Now, a search for “gay sex” quickly reveals many books, coincidentally about gay sex. So apparently that search listing isn’t affected. Visiting a listing for one of the books in that result reveals the conspicuous absence of a sales rank. Thus, while I can’t quite see how this is affecting search results, the removal of a sales rank from a book is definitely a penalty when it comes to Amazon listings.

Not All Books are Equally Adult

Craig Seymour points out that this policy isn’t new, and in fact, some adult materials have a sales rank. So at first glance, Amazon’s policy appears to be quite unfair. But having a policy isn’t the same as implementing it, and maybe Amazon’s laziness is to blame instead of its morality.

Nigerian Princes Have Taken Over Amazon

At first, the assumption across the Internet, fuelled by the likes of Probst and Seymour, was that this was all an intentional move by Amazon. Now, this is a natural reaction. Probst and Seymour’s responses from Amazon are pretty damning testimony. But it inevitably isn’t the whole story, and soon cooler heads suggested that this is the result of an exploit by spammers.

For its part, someone else at Amazon reported that this is a “glitch” they are in the process of fixing. This would seem to support those who theorize that one or more spammers have abused Amazon’s reporting system. Thus, Amazon’s adult content policy itself isn’t to blame, but rather the way they’ve implemented it: poorly.

In a previous tweet of mine, I joked that the glitch explanation implies Amazon has a “homophobe mode”, but when presented as an exploit by spammers instead of an internal problem, it makes more sense. I am more than willing to eat my words (mmm, yummy words!).

Still, the existence of this glitch raises several questions about Amazon’s responsibility to its consumers. Firstly, is the existence of an adult content policy in any way fair? If such a policy should exist, is a user-reporting mechanism really the best way to mark books as “adult”? Why doesn’t Amazon have someone manually reviewing user reports? And even if they get too many reports and have to automatically process them, shouldn’t the system be protected from common exploits?

Apparently I Need a Big Brother to Buy Books

I was very surprised to learn about Amazon’s “adult content policy,” of which I was ignorant until #amazonfail occurred. It’s not a new policy, apparently. In our haste to discuss the fallout of #amazonfail itself, it’s imperative we don’t ignore the very existence of this adult content policy and its implications for both authors and consumers.

Google has long had a “safe search” option that screens out adult content. There are two important distinctions between Google’s safe search and Amazon’s safe search. Firstly, I don’t buy stuff (directly) from Google. Secondly, I can turn off Google’s safe search.

The fact that Google’s safe search is opt-out instead of opt-in is debatable on its own, but this article is not a place for that debate. For now, since I’m using Google to find information and not to sell or buy a product, I’m of the opinion that an opt-out safe search is acceptable. If I want to expose myself to both “safe” and “unsafe” content, I can turn it off—which, for the record, I have. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn’t seem offer me the same flexibility. Not only do I fail to see an option in my account settings to disable this “safe search” of theirs, I see no mention of it. In other words, Amazon’s adult content policy isn’t a secret, but they aren’t practising full disclosure either.

This is unfair to authors who sell on Amazon, people like Craig Seymour who only find out after they contact Amazon looking for an explanation. If one wants to sell through a distributor, one expects the distributor to be up front about anything that may hinder sales, such as a restrictive adult content policy. Regardless of the cause of #amazonfail, Amazon’s adult content policy is just a bad business practice. It would be great if they would be more open about disclosing the policy’s existence and provided a feature to turn it off. It would be ideal if they scrapped the policy altogether.

We are the Patients; Amazon is Our Asylum

The speculation regarding Amazon’s “glitch” revolves around the fact that users can mark a book as featuring adult content. I can’t actually find that functionality on a listing page, but I may be incompetent or Amazon may have removed that feature as a reaction to #amazonfail. An alternative is that the system is transparent and only invoked when someone actually sends Amazon a complaint instead of clicking a button. Nevertheless, it appears that Amazon doesn’t actually base its content rating on an objective standard. Rather, it trusts its users.

Insert laughter here.

User reporting works well for small communities, or for large communities that double check the math. It is irresponsible of Amazon to rely solely on user-reported mechanisms for rating content. Even if Amazon does use such mechanisms, they should at least periodically verify that these reports are valid. It’s all too easy for a human to instruct other humans or robots to game the system. Remember how Colbert won the vote for NASA’s new module on the International Space Station? He gamed the system by getting his audience to write-in his name as a suggestion. But don’t forget that some of the other write-in suggestions were “XENU” (Scientology has its robot adherents as well) and “MYYEARBOOK” (obviously a spammer). Any automated system that allows user feedback is vulnerable to exploitation. Shame on Amazon for letting this happen, if this was in fact a glitch.

When the dust clears and Amazon releases a statement about #amazonfail, we need to walk away from this with one thing clearly in mind: while it’s unfortunate that #amazonfail happened, it’s a stark reminder of any company’s vulnerability to the masses who populate the Internet. I’m not just talking about Twitter—Twitter made #amazonfail a faster, and probably a larger, discussion, but that discussion would have happened nonetheless. And whether #amazonfail was caused by a glitch or a policy run wild or the alignment of Venus with Mars and Sedna, the fact remains that Amazon should rethink its sales ranking system. Censorship is a problem no matter what the source, and we can’t expect the spammers to spontaneously drop their weapons and surrender any time soon. So it remains Amazon’s responsibility to defend against external exploits and to craft internal policy that makes sense. As the heated reactions this Easter weekend demonstrate, that means being vigilant.

Update: Amazon has provided what is likely as good an explanation as we’ll get. I agree with Cheryl Morgan’s analysis of the entire episode.

Last updated Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 10:33 PM

According to Robert Thomson, Google is an “internet parasite”. In Thomson’s view, Google’s aggregation of content promotes a “‘mistaken perception’ that content should be free” and decreases traditional brand loyalty.

The nature of content, content creation, and how much this information is worth are at the heart of every major debate regarding the economics of the Internet. These issues are responsible for our DRM woes with regards to software and digital music, and they drive the collapse of so-called “traditional media”, such as newspapers, which aren’t adapting quickly enough to the new playing field.

This is the most amusing quotation:

Google encourages promiscuity — and shamelessly so — and therefore a significant proportion of their users don’t necessarily associate that content with the creator.

Oh no! Google’s promoting competition among content providers! How dare they?! I mean, it’s not as if the so-called “free market” is based on competition. Shame on Google for corrupting those free market values!

I would go so far as to argue that the whole point of the Internet is aggregation of content. This is why the Internet revolution is so profoundly different from any previous information revolution, including that of the printing press. The Internet removes any cost associated with distributing content—there’s only the initial cost of production, then it can be distributed an infinite number of times. And this is scary for businesses that rely on the scarcity of their commodity relative to its demand. Now that content can be ubiquitous and easily accessible, these businesses are struggling to adapt their revenue model.

Thomson’s reaction, unfortunately, is indicative of the larger trend among traditional media providers: they don’t get it. They don’t get that it doesn’t matter if content should be free—content is free now. We live in a society of moochers. Pointing at Google, which has recognized the role of the Internet in content creation and is now profiting from it, and claiming that Google’s tactics “aren’t fair” is just an economist form of whining. In order for newspapers to survive, it won’t be about the content they produce but their ability to specialize, embrace new technology—rather than resist it or co-opt it—and their willingness to share content at first in order to build that brand loyalty that Thomson insists Google is ruthlessly eradicating.

Meantime Thomson said it was “amusing” to read media blogs and comment sites, all of which traded on other people’s information.

“They are basically editorial echo chambers rather than centres of creation, and the cynicism they have about so-called traditional media is only matched by their opportunism in exploiting the quality of traditional media,” he said.

It’s true that many sites, especially those that aggregate content, aren’t necessarily original. However, Thomson fails to acknowledge that freely-available content allows for new “centres of creation.” That’s why we have concepts like “public domain” and Creative Commons.

To be fair, Thomson does a good job of summarizing the challenges of traditional media: “Thomson also said it was incumbent on content creators to make their own websites compelling for readers.” The article ends with a somewhat syntactically ambiguous quotation, but I think Thomson was adding a caveat emptor for those who prefer to reinvent the wheel rather than fix the broken one. He raises questions that newspapers must answer before finding their place in the new world order.

I for one welcome newspapers to the Internet, provided the stop whining and adapt (or die). The Internet isn’t killing newspapers; the market that the Internet facilitates is killing newspapers. And so far, newspapers‘ bids to kill off the market haven’t worked, so it’s time to face the music: change or die. Because unless newspapers do start doing something useful with their online presence, aren’t they just parasites preying on those who have been socialized—wrongly I believe—that knowledge must be hoarded?

Once upon a time, I expressed a desire to live in Iceland. Unfortunately, these tough economic times have been even tougher on Iceland, what with the government collapsing and all.

Our government came close to dissolving. It looks like that won’t happen, however, now that the Liberal party has a new leader who’s decided he’ll support the Conservative budget. Many people are upset with this about-face by Michael Ignatieff.¹ Since I don’t understand economics and don’t know how to manage money, the best I can do is shrug and hope that our government isn’t planning to do anything silly.²

Meanwhile, I plan to switch back to the barter system. Think about how much the barter system benefits from the digital world! I don’t have to trade chickens; I can just trade electrons with you. It is, by definition, electronic currency. If you prefer a rarer commodity as a currency, you may also trade positrons. Be careful with those, however, as they are liable to annihilate electrons—so I‘d keep my bank accounts separate, if I were you.

Now that we are indubitably living in the End Times, we should kick back and relax. The world’s ending, so it’s not like there’s much of a tomorrow to worry about, now is there? Regarding the afterlife, the majority of the world’s going to be wrong in any event. So pick a religion (or a non-religion) and stick with it; it’s not going to matter much in the end.

And since you won’t be around, this is a great time to take out more of those credit cards the banks eagerly thrust into your hands. You might be saying, “Wait, isn’t that how we got into this mess in the first place?” That’s true, but we’ve dug the hole so deep there’s no getting out of it, and when that happens, you might as well keep digging.

You can then use the credit cards to buy every one of those products advertised on TV. You know the ones I’m talking about: infomercial products, the kind with the toll-free number at the end and the fast-talking voice that informs you about doubling your offer for free (plus expensive shipping and handling fees). If you‘re like me, you’ve often wished your job consisted of ordering those products just to see if they really work as well as advertised. Well, thanks to your fraudulent credit cards, you can!

This massive buying spree using fake credit will keep the delivery companies going for the next ten or fifteen years until the evil army of robots rises up and destroys us. Survivors will be utterly and mercilessly destroyed, since robots aren’t evil overlords and don’t make the same mistakes.

So thanks a lot, Iceland.

---

• [ 1 ] Especially Jack Layton: “Blast! My evil plans foiled again! Nyaaah!”
• [ 2 ] Read: We are. So screwed.

CBC radio show Spark wants to know what Canada needs to do today to become a major innovator tomorrow. This is an important issue with the election looming. In addition to interviewing technology experts, the Spark blog has asked listeners to submit their own “Digital Wish Lists”. Here’s mine:

1. Establishment of a Minister of Technology. I agree with Mitch Kapoor. We have a Minister of Health, a Minister of Industry—why not someone in charge of the country’s technological infrastructure?
2. Better copyright reform. Bill C-61 has demonstrated that many Canadians care about copyright reform. Even if one is in favour of the copyright protection measures outlined in Bill C-61 (I am not), critics have pointed out numerous flaws that make Bill C-61 a poor piece of legislation. I want our government to have open consultation with the public to craft viable, enforceable copyright legislation that balances intellectual property ownership with the need for access to information.
3. More competition in the telecommunications sector. I am not a capitalist, but a lack of competition does mean that consumers have less choice. Here in Thunder Bay, we have one choice for cable TV service: Shaw. Until recently, only local TBayTel provided home phone service; now Shaw does too. Only TBayTel and Rogers provide cell phone service. That doesn’t leave the consumer much choice when it comes to negotiating contracts. On a national level, a lack of competition stifles innovation and growth.
4. Nation-wide improvement to technological infrastructure. Broadband penetration. We need it. Not just fibre-optics right to homes (which would be nice), but also coverage in rural areas. Bring Canada into the 21st century.
5. Access to government databases. Putting publicly-available data online should be a priority. People need to be informed; an online presence is virtually a requirement for any organization. The government has already made good progress, but it can still go further and think bigger.
6. Government adoption of open alternatives to proprietary formats. The Quebec government was recently sued for buying proprietary software. While I don’t know if I’d go that far, the government should explore alternatives to proprietary software. Otherwise, businesses like Microsoft and Apple have unnecessary leverage.

Technology advances too quickly for a mechanism like government to legislate in real time. Like any social fad, once a technology becomes mainstream, it pretty much stays until rendered obsolete by newer technology. Rather than trying to create legislation about specific technology, the government needs to establish a framework that encourages the development of technology along certain trajectories.

Part of my comment on that entry was included in this week’s episode of Spark. It’s also got an interesting tale from Bill Parry, an intriguing new service from Nathan Eagle, and a discussion on the French-English digital divide.

An election looms in my own fine country even as the Americans battle it out for who gets to inherit the Bush legacy. Two and a half years ago, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives inherited the scandal-ridden legacy of over a decade of Liberal government. As usual, getting elected is easier than actually running the country and making effective decisions that improve the lives of its citizens—Harper hasn’t been doing either of these things very well. He blames his inability to perform on his partners in Parliament, our three opposition leaders. They maintain that he refuses to compromise, doesn’t put the toilet seat down, and until he decides to cooperate, they’re moving out and going to live with their mothers.

Er … anyway, now that we have fixed four-year election dates, the next election would theoretically be in October 2009. However, the Prime Minister still has the right to go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve Parliament if he believes the government can no longer function effectively. Harper has been rattling just that particular sabre lately, and an election looks increasingly likely. He has met with all three opposition leaders now, but I doubt that any of those meetings was very productive.

The Conservatives have been airing an annoyingly obvious campaign ad on television. I mute it every time it comes on. Those of you not in Canada or lacking a TV can see it on YouTube (warning: contains graphic and disturbing endorsements of Stephen Harper). Notice how the Conservative Party has disabled comments and video responses for the video. Alas, this is not a clean jab—admittedly, disabling comments on YouTube is probably a good idea, considering the average level of intellect you’ll see in the other comments.

The ad focuses on how these supposedly “everyday, Main Street Canadians” see Stephen Harper as a leader who is taking Canada in the right direction. I have several problems with this. Firstly, our government should not be about one leader. That’s the U.S. shtick. I’ll vote for a member of Parliament who I believe will best represent my constituency. However, I do admit that I take the leader of the party into account when I’ll vote, and as this entry’s title declares, I will not vote for our Conservative candidate, no matter who he or she is.

It’s at this point that I must admit I’m a hypocrite. I denounce the attack ads aired by all campaigns; I want them to focus on the issues more than painting their opponents as undesirable leaders. Yet here I am, determined to support a party other than the Conservatives because I find its leader undesirable! Yes, I also disagree with most of the stances of that leader. I still feel kind of dirty though. Curse you, Stephen Harper, and your Kobayashi Maru election!

Moving on….

Secondly, that shot of Harper at the end is kind of creepy. Finally, I disagree with the main message of the ad, and I don’t care what these other people say. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Conservative government doesn’t care if they persuade me with their bubblegum campaigning. I suspect they only care about persuading those other “Main Street Canadians” (the four that weren’t included in the ad) who might not otherwise vote for the Conservatives; the party is emphasizing Harper’s pro-citizen reforms: harsher justice, family values, lower taxes, and all that jazz.

Of course, it doesn’t help that our other potential Prime Ministers have the charisma or leadership abilities of a shaved llama. The Green Party still hasn’t had an elected MP—just recently they obtained their first sitting MP by shopping at a discount Liberal MP store. The NDP get closer to pulling it off each time, but they are still a long way away from garnering enough support to form a government. Not living in Quebec, I have trouble understanding the national relevance of the Bloc¹. So we‘re left with the Liberal Party of Canada, just as corrupt as the Conservative Party, but slightly more palatable because it’s not the Conservative Party—just as the Conservatives were slightly more palatable last time because they weren’t the Liberals. It’s how our elections work.

I want an election, if only to kill the horrible copyright bill that’s in Parliament right now. In addition to that, I dislike the cuts that the Conservative government has made to programs designed to promote Canadian culture and Canadian artists abroad. A person more paranoid than me might see these actions as a form of sneaky censorship. It’s a good thing I‘m not paranoid, no sir!

At the very least, if the Liberals form the next government, we can make fun of Dion’s accent. Remember when we used to do that with Chrétien? Good times….

---

• [ 1 ] Which is not to say that I disrespect the concept of Quebec as a nation or Québécois as a culture. Please don’t throw poutine at my dad’s house.

Roll your dice, ladies and gentlemen. After sixty years of continuous gameplay, I‘m sure you’re eager for it to be over, but there’s still a few cards left to be won.

I’m sure that it came as a big surprise to everyone when Russia announced its intentions to absorb South Ossetia after unilaterally declaring it independent. Now Russia has effectively seized control of the territory. Russia’s actions are irrational and somewhat disturbing, but what else is new? Unfortunately, I’m having trouble forming an opinion.

For those of us too young to have lived through the Cold War or the aftermath of the subsequent decades, it can be hard to understand the significance of Russia’s actions. It doesn’t help that—at least here in Ontario—our one compulsory high school history course ends after World War II. Let’s break the facts down and see if we can make some sense of what’s happening.

First, some background. South Ossetia is a region in Georgia that is loyal to Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia became an independent country, but South Ossetia wanted to join Russia—and they were willing to fight for it. Naturally, Georgia does not want to lose a large region of territory. In the early ’90s, violence ensued. Eventually Georgia and South Ossetia reached a tenuous cease-fire. However, other governments have refused to recognize South Ossetia as an independent country.

The current confict is indubitably fuelled by these long-standing tensions. As I understand it, the ignition occurred when Georgia sent soldiers into the South Ossetian region to quell dissidents. Fighting broke out, and Russia saw this as an opportunity to send its own forces into the area under the banner of peacekeepers. This escalated the situation into a global one—Russia invading any country is a matter for concern, especially considering its tenuous relationship with the United States. After all, the Bush administration is full of old war horses who still worry that Russia will set up us the bomb. Furthermore, Georgia is a prospective member of NATO.

Russia, of course, apologized and quickly moved to clarify the situation: it did not care what the rest of the international community thinks. Eventually France brokered a ceasefire that stipulated Russia must withdraw its troops to within South Ossetia—Russia has yet to do so. Initially they insisted they were withdrawing (when they weren‘t), and now they’ve just decided to declare South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent.

So I mean … who’s side are we on? Either way, this sets precedents. South Ossetia is getting what it wants—the very nature of democracy implies that the people should be able to choose their government, and the South Ossetians want Russia. It seems like a pretty clear-cut solution: Georgia and the rest of the international community should accept the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia must face sanctions, of course—whatever the result, the means were unacceptable.

On the other hand, are we just going to let Russia go in and carve up another country like that? Canada came close to losing Quebec—can you imagine if Quebec separatists had won the referendum and wanted to join the U.S.?

Plus, we know that the U.S. and the rest of the world can’t just let this go. Georgia is but the latest pawn in this Ice-Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. Of course, before making an enemy, it is best to ensure that you don’t need them as a friend.

I’m viewing the issue as one of democracy versus the special interests of other countries. How do you view it?

Humans are an insane and suicidal species. This is not a new revelation to most of us, I‘m sure. Nor is it news that the world is crazy. But let’s stop and reflect for a moment on some recent events that underline such insanity, shall we?

First on the block is the situation in Georgia. When this originally happened, I could understand (but did not approve of) Russia’s actions. The area is ethnically diverse and highly conflicted. While South Ossetia may be a part of Georgia, it seems to be more sympathetic to Russia. Unfortunately for them, they’re still part of Georgia, and that doesn’t give Russia much business sending troops in there. Russia claims that their troops are peacekeeping forces, a response to Georgian troops sent into South Ossetia to quell militants. Then, however, Russia sent troops past the border of South Ossetia into other regions of Georgia!

After France finally brokered a ceasefire, Russia agreed to withdraw its troops. So far such withdrawals have been minimal. The Russians are playing the old game of “the truth is what we say it is, not what you see.” The Russian officials insist that they are withdrawing; soldiers continue to fortify their positions in Georgia and some say that they have received no word to leave.

Next up: America (of course!). Let me try and get this one straight: America is a capitalist country, where success (measured in wealth) is a product of individual strength and determination. Yet the two major presidential candidates are engaged in an attempt to make the other one look like an elitist—i.e., a successful, wealthy individual. Obama’s campaign is accusing McCain of owning too many houses; McCain’s campaign gives out free tire gauges to show that Obama’s energy plan is lunacy … it’s a shame American politics are more interesting than Canadians politics right now. I love watching The Colbert Report, but I feel vaguely un-Canadian.

Speaking of Canada, is any one else ready for an election? The sad part is that none of our leaders are particularly charismatic or worthy, in my view, of leading the country. However, Stephen Harper hasn’t done a very good job so far, and now instead of just being dysfunctional, he’s beginning to show signs of adversely affecting the country. I’m concerned about Bill C-61, and you should be too. An election would give us more time to hash out a better set of copyright amendments.

I don’t know that Stephan Dion will be a better Prime Minister, but maybe we can taunt him into doing our bidding by making fun of his passive-aggressive leadership style!