Well, thanks, Amazon. Nice to know I'm not allowed to have opinions.

[seawasp]

Pointed out by burger_eater, who spends way too much time looking for things to make my stomach hurt.

The last Amazon kerfluffle was slightly more involved than it looked, though in the end we still had "Amazon cancels your account, and not only can't you buy new stuff, you can't access the stuff you already paid for, and no, they keep your money too".

Today, we have the fact that apparently authors are not allowed to review anyone else's books. The claimed reason is (try not to laugh) that you as an author have a "financial interest" because you are a producer of a "competing product".

Moreover, if you've reviewed some other author's book and they reject the review, continued questioning of this policy could get the reviewed book removed from Amazon.

Think about that for a minute.

First, you're basically saying that authors are not allowed to express their opinions on books. I can understand not liking some guy going around and slagging other authors' books, but really, saying ANY author review of ANY book is potentially conflict of interest?

Second, the potential for abuse boggles the mind. Imagine that there's some author that's REALLY pissed me off at some point. Now all I have to do is write a review -- even a FAVORABLE review! -- of his book. And not take "no" for an answer when Amazon declines to post the review. After a few cycles, they REMOVE HIS BOOK FROM AMAZON.

That's right, I've just got Amazon to delete books written by people I don't like! Or maybe they're someone I have no personal grudge against, but they're on the wrong political side of the fence, so I get rid of their wrongheaded scribblings, making sure that only books I approve of stay up! Or, perhaps, I'm just sour that other people sell better, so I do the same thing for EVERY BOOK THAT MAKES THE BESTSELLER LISTS!

I'm just totally gobsmacked. Who the hell is running the company these days? Loki?

Comments

[shanejayell.livejournal.com]

....

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I suspect it's an attempt to stop groups of self-published authors from astroturfing each other to 5-star status.

Unfortunately it's a really badly thought out attempt to do (ditto). See also: rule of unintended side-effects.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

Yep.

Bear in mind that the removal of the work is not automatic. I like to think that one or more humans with more than two brain cells between them to rub together would be responsible for weeding out the cranks. I'm an optimist in my spare time. :)

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

Definitely Loki.

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

Aint that a total hoot about Amazon? I figured it would be easy to game their system based on their rules.

It also makes me wonder about author book blurbs and reveiws from the paid markets that they quote in the original marketing plans, by Amazons rules, they should also be discounted and punished, like that Stephen King fellow.

[richardboustead.livejournal.com]

As a Test Analyst, this sort of thing is the bane of my life - "Business Experts" craft a system they think is perfect, and then look at you with this utterly blank look when you point out the glaring loopholes. Granted, I haven't been getting as many 'foolproof' systems as I used to, but the memories are still there.

Still at times like this, the old adage of "never attributing to malice what can be explained by sheer stupidity" is apt, if a little trite. That said, it's still pretty chilling to think that the two options for the policy makers are "Malicious" or "Stupid".