Amazonfail: It's Not Over Yet

Amazon has fixed some though by no means all of the problems encompassed by "amazonfail."

But as to amazonfail's being caused by a "glitch"? Unless "amazonfail" is only narrowly defined in terms of its having affected works of mainstream literature or scholarship that management probably didn't intend to censor, I profoundly doubt it. After reading Francine Saint Marie's Amazon's "Glitch" Myth Debunked, I really don't think it's possible to go on giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt. Her post begins

I am the author of the LAMBDA Notable Book, The Secret Keeping, as well as The Secret Trilogy, Girl Trouble, and several other popular LGBT paperbacks sold on Amazon.com.

All of my novels have been aggressively censored by Amazon since (at least) January of 2008, when they were first released as Kindle editions and promptly rigged in the Kindle store so as not to register any sales ranks and bestselling categories, or to show up properly in Amazon search results. I have also experienced mysterious "sourcing fees" applied by Amazon to the list prices of my LGBT paperbacks, as well as the deletion of five-star customer reviews of them, the removal of their "in stock" status, and a host of other handicapping techniques which are still in effect today.

She relates a Kafkaesque tale anyone who's tried to penetrate the shrouds of corporate bureaucracy will appreciate.

Lessons from Amazonfail

I've seen some excellent posts on amazonfail over the last couple of days. I'd like to draw your attention to two in particular that address the ethical issues that can't be dismissed by attributing amazonfail entirely to a misfortunate typo (which an undisclosed source inside Amazon.com apparently claims was made by a French employee). At TechCrunch, technologist Mary Hodder's Why Amazon Didn't Just Have A Glitch discusses algorithms and institutional bias as illuminated by amazonfail.

The issue with #AmazonFail isn’t that a French Employee pressed the wrong button or could affect the system by changing “false” to “true” in filtering certain “adult” classified items, it’s that Amazon’s system has assumptions such as: sexual orientation is part of “adult”. And “gay” is part of “adult.” In other words, #AmazonFail is about the subconscious assumptions of people built into algorithms and classification that contain discriminatory ideas. When other employees use the system, whether they themselves agree with the underlying assumptions of the algorithms and classification system, or even realize the system has these point’s of view built in, they can put those assumptions into force, as the Amazon France Employee apparently did according to Amazon.

As Hodder observes,

The ethical issue with algorithms and information systems generally is that they make choices about what information to use, or display or hide, and this makes them very powerful. These choices are never made in a vacuum and reflect both the conscious and subconscious assumptions and ideas of their creators.

The ethics bar in creating algorithms and classification systems should be very high. In fact I would suggest that companies with power in the marketplace, both commercial and ideas, should consider outside review of these systems’ assumptions and points of view so the results are fair.

Algorithms are often invisible, and difficult to detect by design, because technologies that use them are designed not to share the methods for providing information. This is mainly because users are focused on the tasks at hand in information systems, and given good information, they don’t need to know everything under the system’s hood, and because technology makers like to keep the ’secret sauce” hidden from competitors, not to mention people who would game systems for their own devices such as spammers or other bad actors.

A post on the Equal Justice Society blog extends Hodder's discussion: How the Amazon "Glitch" Relates to Structural Discrimination and Racism. The author of the post, Keith, writes

In both the Amazon glitch and structural social groups, the impact of system-driven automatic choices is often irrefutable: a category of books and a category of people suffer from discrimination that has a clear negative impact on their opportunity to succeed.

In both cases, the causes of the problem are constructs - one technological, one sociological - a creation by human beings that have no inherent malice, but result in discrimination because bias seeds the way the systems make choices.

Some of the reactions to Hodder’s analysis also sing the same tunes to those we hear when we present the notion that unconscious bias, even in the absence of conscious discrimination, impedes opportunity.

(Links thanks to Michelle Murrain.)

And by the way, just so you know: the Aqueduct book struck by amazonfail, Centuries Ago and Very Fast, is now available at Powells.com.

mysteries

I've been keeping an eye on the page for Aqueduct's "amazonfail" book, Centuries Ago and Very Fast, since Thursday, when it lost its sales ranking. (Until the amazonfail story broke, I just assumed it was another screw-up, which occasionally just happens to our pages. For instance, changing the spelling of "Alanya to Alanya" to "Alany to Alanya," or inserting a review for Filter House into the middle of a review for Stretto.) Although Centuries still doesn't have a sales rank, a few changes have occurred in the last 24 hours. For one thing, Centuries now comes up when I search for works by Rebecca Ore. For another, about half a dozen proposed tags have been removed from the page, leaving only two tags: "amazonfail" and "time travel." (I don't have exact recall of all the tags removed, but I think they may all have had "gay" in them.)

Does that mean Amazon is going to "solve" its "glitch" by removing tags that have the word "gay" in them? And I wonder: did they leave the "amazonfail" tag to help them identify pages that have been affected by their "glitch"? I have no knowledge of programming, so I can't even begin to guess what's going on. But I do wonder where those suggested tags--- "Tags Customers Associate with This Product"--- came from in the first place. In the case of Centuries' page, neither the author nor the publisher put them there, and since the page states "No one has tagged this product for Amazon search yet," I assume that no customers put them there, either. Anybody know what that's about?