Amazon.com listing had Barack Obama Halloween mask under 'terrorist'

[sabra]

Source: LATimes

<snip>

Anyway, a listing on Amazon.com, one of the largest and most successful online merchandisers in the world, seemed to come down even beyond the Republicans' side -- for a while anyway. With Halloween just days away, they're making a bundle off a $49.95 Barack Obama mask.

Which was displayed on the "terrorist costume" page.

You read that right!

(UPDATE: Amazon's listing seems to have caught itself and deleted the Obama mask from the terrorist page. However, before that happened, The Ticket captured a photo. See below.)

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/obam...

---

[Oceansaway]

1. they just lost me as a buyer....n/t

[RoyGBiv]

4. Amazon didn't do this ...

... but they did fix the problem when it was brought to their attention.

Having certain tags associated with certain products is susceptible to manipulation in much the same way Google bombs once worked.

[primavera]

6. Anyone can tag anything any way they like

I just found out that I could tag the McCain mask with the tag "nazi." There's nothing to prevent reich wingnuts from doing the same to an Obama item. I don't think we can blame amazon.com for this one. At most, one could argue that they should perhaps be more vigilant about policing what they allow people to do on their website.

[sendero]

124. Exactly..

.... and since they took action when it was pointed out, I don't blame them.

Some of you folks are so naive about how this stuff works, learn something before you go off half-cocked.

[GinaMaria]

7. They are responsible for the content on their site.

[merwin]

10. They're responsible for that as much as DU is responsible for people's posts.

When it was brought to their attention, they removed the offending content.

[GinaMaria]

23. they are not a blog

they are a business that risks alienating a large segment of their patrons. Did they really not expect something like this when putting an Obama item up for sale? DU has an alert button. Users here are a community and work together to alert mods on content that could make DU look bad or are in other ways inappropriate. It seems a strange comparison, DU to Amazon. DU is meant to discuss offensive or potentially inflammatory items and specifically caters to Dem's. Amazon's purpose is to sell goods. If they intend to only cater to the right wing, they need to say so. They are responsible for their technology, their image, and the content of their website.

[RoyGBiv]

25. And they fixed it ...

They fixed it faster than most would.

[GinaMaria]

27. not fast enough for it to make the news!

guess that's motivation to act quickly, when you see your business in an LA times article and the offending evidence posted on a website. They owe an explanation and an apology. Neither are extreme requests for the incidents.

[rcrush]

28. I'm sorry

But I dont think its Amazons fault that someone vandalizes their website. And were they really reading a blog on the LA Times website or did someone just email them and let them know someone tagged their Obama mask?

[GinaMaria]

30. No need for you to apologize

They own the website and the content and their reputation/image. Not anyone else. If they want to hand over their reputation to nutjobs they are free to do so, but it is still their site and they own the content. Do you really think they didn't expect behavior like this when they posted an Obama item for sale? Shouldn't they expect something similar when they post Palin or McCain items?

They chose the technology that put them at risk, they own the consequences. The same would be true of my employer. If someone "vandalized" our website using technology we made available to them, we would be responsible.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

33. you have no idea what you're talking about

If someone spraypainted "Obama is a Terrorist" on your garage door when you weren't home, would you be responsible for it at the moment somebody drove by and saw it?

Or would you be responsible for removing the vandalism once you got home and were aware of the offensive language?

Amazon.com was made aware of the issue and corrected it. Case closed.

[GinaMaria]

34. What if I supplied the paint?

Amazon is a business. They are open to the public. They provided the technology that was used to 'vandalize' them.

Vs. private property
I can do what I wish with my private property. Other's are not allowed to do what they wish on my private property. That is illegal and I would fill out a police report and press charges as well as have to clean up someone else's mess. How much sympathy would you have for me, if I supplied the spray paint?

[merwin]

42. So along those lines, EBay should be responsible if someone puts up something for sale

like an Obama mask, and puts "terrorist costume" in the description. They should not only be responsible for taking it down (which they would), but they should also be responsible for screening everything that comes through?

That's the price of allowing free speech. Sometimes you don't like what's said. As long as the offending tags were removed, what's your beef?

[GinaMaria]

50. Ebay would take it down

and probably flag the seller. Both appropriate responses. Amazon's response is too weak in my opinion. If it is fine with you, then why should you care if I don't agree? They are responsible for correcting it (both Ebay and Amazon). This is their business. Would you allow someone to hurt your business like that?

FYI: There is no free speech on someone else's property. Can you say whatever you want at your job? Unless you are the owner, the answer is 'no'. Can I put up a sign expressing my opinion in your yard?

As far as the offending material being removed see post 37.

[merwin]

55. I don't understand.

Who's property are you talking about? Amazon is providing their "yard" to people who want to sell shit. And they also provide a system where people can tag certain items, with no restrictions. And they also provide a way for people to alert them to abuse.

As to the offending material being removed, it WAS removed. Some dumbasses re-tagged it as that after they saw the story probably. And if you alert them it will get removed as well.

If you're so pissed off at this behavior, go tag some McCain Palin shit.

[GinaMaria]

62. I'm not looking to tag anything

I'm looking for amazon to apologize and create a remedy to address the problem. Obviously they haven't as it will continue to be tagged and removed and go through the cycle again. I'm not making unreasonable demands. Issue an apology and statement that this is not what amazon stands for and state how this will be taken care of moving forward. This is basic business PR. I understand that things have changed in the information age. People expect less privacy and expect to share their opinions with a virtual community among other things. But corporate responsibility still exists. I'm not demanding anything extreme. I don't understand why you care so much about my opinion.

[merwin]

68. I don't expect DU (also a business) to apologize when some racist asshole says something mean.

Why should I expect Amazon to apologize when some racist asshole tags one of their products?

[GinaMaria]

70. You do expect DU to take action

for example, delete the post, tombstone the poster and make attempts to block the poster from posting again. Is Amazon doing anything like that?

[RoyGBiv]

79. And Amazon is taking action ...

Now, it could take more action. From what I've seen today, it's taking down the offending tags almost as quickly as they pop up, but there are a lot of rampaging freepers out there, so it's a running battle.

DU could take more action too, since after all trolls and freepers do still find the site -- daily -- and do post some seriously offensive garbage. DU could end open signups. It could block entire networks associated with IPs where a lot of troublesome posters have originated, thus blocking more people that have no ill intent at all, but we're not worried about that. DU could change to a moderation system that requires pre-approval of posts. It could hire a staff to make this feasible, and of course you won't mind them charging every user a significant per-month fee to offset the costs.

Or, it could just go offline. No site, no freepers, no worries.

Freepers, btw, are loving this. They're loving the fact that certain people are freaking out about it. It's motivating them to work even harder to do battle with Amazon on this.

[GinaMaria]

82. If you are satisfied with Amazon's response

then why would you care if I am not? In my opinion, they didn't respond strongly enough. I'm not asking for very much, just an explanation of what happened, an apology/statement that this is not what amazon believes and a statement about managing this going forward. It's pretty basic. It certainly doesn't qualify as 'freaking out'.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

126. do you have any idea how many crackpots are out there in the world

and in cyberspace? They can't issue statements for every infraction or else that's all their legal and PR teams would be doing all day every day.

Read - Conditions of Use
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=...

[kirby]

104. Ebay??? No one on DU does business there...

Obviously since John McCain thinks eBay founder Meg Whitman should be Sec of the Treasury, and constantly mentions her in his stump speaches, I am sure everyone has boycotted them too.

[plaintiff]

100. Every time I think I've seen every fucking moronic thing

another one pops up.

[niceypoo]

38. "They chose the technology that put them at risk, they own the consequences"

That is the most ignorant, absurd, comment I have seen in a long time.

Congratulations.

[GinaMaria]

39. Thanks for playing

you are a winner. I'm going shopping at Amazon right now.

[msallied]

137. I shopped at Amazon five minutes ago. I fail to see the problem here.

[plaintiff]

98. Blaming the victim? You're behaving like a republican.

jeezus...

[merwin]

41. If you want to write up shit about McCain and push certain words to point to his stuff, then do it.

The reason this was possible is because their system allows for people to tag items. Are they supposed to police each one?

[GinaMaria]

43. If this were your business what would you do?

what makes the most business sense to you? Is it better to claim no responsibility over the content on your website or better to be proactive when making items like an Obama mask available? Just like Michael Moore's books they have to expect a certain response and should be prepared to manage it appropriately. See post 37.

[merwin]

47. They should evaluate every scenerio when they sell an item and not allow any comments or tags

on items that could have negative tags attached to them.

How do you propose doing this?

[GinaMaria]

51. How do I propose doing what?

Enacting your idea of what they should do?

[merwin]

58. No, enacting your idea of what they should do.

Policing every item proactively so you can't tag an Obama item with Terrorist, and also prevent someone else from coming up with a new tag that is slightly different once "terrorist" is banned.

Censorship of that sort will not work, and would end up with all tags being done away with, because the amount of maintenance on hundreds of thousands of individual items would be insane. Note that many of these items aren't even sold by Amazon themselves.

[merwin]

59. They do claim responsibility.

They say they will remove offensive content once it is flagged. And they did.

If it were my business, I wouldn't be worried about it at all because most people see Amazon's way of handling it as perfectly appropriate. You seem to be the only one causing a big fuss about it.

[GinaMaria]

64. do you have a link?

Where they claimed responsibility?


from Amazon
Visitors may post reviews, comments, photos, and other content; send e-cards and other communications; and submit suggestions, ideas, comments, questions, or other information, so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable and does not consist of or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of a card or other content. Amazon reserves the right (but not the obligation) to remove or edit such content, but does not regularly review posted content.

[merwin]

71. They claimed responsibility when they removed the offending tags.

They fulfilled their part of the obligation.

I personally believe that people are smart enough to see a racist asshole abusing the tag system as what it is, and not try to blame Amazon for it. If you don't like the way their tag system works, then feel free to not shop there. I don't think I'm going to be able to change your mind.

[GinaMaria]

77. That's what I've been saying

I will not shop there as their response to this was way too weak. You are satisfied with their response. That's your opinion. I am not. I have let them know that and will give them some time to respond before I disable my account. Up to this point, their response is not what it should have been. It is disappointing and with so many other vendors out there, I will be expressing myself with my $.

[plaintiff]

101. You cannot change that which doesn't exist.

...

[merwin]

45. Amazon also has ways of alerting people, and they have a community that works together as well.

That is why it was taken down.

Amazon also provides user reviews and user tags so you can find other items that interest you. I don't understand your problem.

I suppose Wikipedia is also responsible for their user-contributed content as well, and should be boycotted the minute someone posts something stupid to it.

[GinaMaria]

52. see post 37

it wasn't removed.

[slampoet]

133. Bullshit. They have paid people. They haven't fired anyone publicly. Therefore it's their fault.

Here at DU we tombstone them.


DU acts responsibly. Why can't Amazon?

[RoyGBiv]

24. To what extent?

Does content that shows up without a human who works there being aware of it tarnish the company indefinitely?

The problem surfaced yesterday. It was brought to their attention. They fixed it. That's better than most companies.

[GinaMaria]

29. They fixed it after it made the news

they owe the public an explanation and apology. Until that time, this part of the public will be shopping some where else. They own the website and the content and their reputation/image. Not anyone else. If they want to hand over their reputation to nutjobs they are free to do so, but it is still their site and they own the content. Do you really think they didn't expect behavior like this when they posted an Obama item for sale? Shouldn't they expect something similar when they post Palin or McCain items? It begs the question... Why wasn't a human who works there aware of it? or watching for it? Seems like a no-brainer.

They chose the technology that put them at risk, they own the consequences.

[RoyGBiv]

32. That's just reaching

I have no dog in this hunt. I haven't shopped at Amazon for years for entirely different reasons.

But this particular pitchfork brigade is off on a silly quest.

[GinaMaria]

35. Their response may be

good enough for you. I am not arguing about what is good enough for you. I am arguing about what I want out of this. Which must be hitting a nerve some where as I have been told I am over reacting, just reaching, off on a silly quest etc. Their response is weak compared to what it should have been. I say that as someone who does Corp Comm for a living. They enabled this behavior on their own site with the technology they provided. They are responsible for the results. A public apology is no way a silly quest nor a pitchfork brigade.

Glad you are satisfied with their response. I am not.

[RoyGBiv]

66. And you make the rules, I guess ...

I'm personally sorry you don't have anything better to do with your time than blame Amazon for the existence of Freepers.

Ya know, the NAACP's website was hacked a couple months ago and had scripts embedded into it that could have stolen credit card information from those attempting to make donations. Now, this didn't make "the news," (which in this case means a blog attached to a newspaper's online website) which is interesting since it took them a few days to fix after several people reported it to them, but that's beside the point. The NAACP, using a technology that allowed this kind of thing to happen, had up a website that could have resulted in financial ruin for anyone visiting it. Google's malware detection scripts flagged it. Some wanted to blame Google and call them racists. Some wanted to blame the NAACP's server company. And some, a few, blamed the NAACP.

Ya know who very, very few blamed? The people that actually did it. That's asinine.

We may as well just go whole hog with this. The brick wall and spray paint are technologies that allow random miscreants to come along and throw up sayings about whatever they want on the walls of storefronts everywhere. If we're going to get really serious about this holding accountable thing, I say we ban the use of brick walls ... or any kind of wall that allows spray paint to stick. Or lets ban the sale of spray paint, and magic markers, and paint, and pencils and, and, and ...

Some idiots are vandalizing Amazon and by extension the businesses that work through Amazon. And you want to blame *them* rather than the people doing the vandalizing.

Yes, that hit a nerve. This is blaming the victim nonsense.

[GinaMaria]

74. You guessed wrong

I do not make the rules. I state my opinion, which you are free to disagree with and spend any amount of time reading or posting about. My credit card carrier's site was hacked and as per the law I was notified immediately of the breach. They canceled my card and sent a new one and took steps to secure the site so it wouldn't happen again. If a hacker can get to financial information on a site, then the site didn't do a good enough job. My credit card's reaction and response was satisfactory. In fact, I appreciated how quickly and honestly they dealt with it. As a customer, it is not my job to make sure the company's site is hacker proof. That's part of the promise of doing business with them on line, that they will provide a secure environment for my transactions.

As a customer I hold them responsible. I am doing business with them. They earn their money from me. They are not victims. They are a business. Yes, they make mistakes and how they handle those mistakes is part of what builds public perception of the business.

[RoyGBiv]

80. In other words ...

You think you make the rules.

A business can be a victim. Because, as you might understand at some point, a business is run by people. When a Jewish business is being hit by anti-Semitic garbage, it, and the people that run it and that shop there, are victims.

And there are a lot of people that make their living from Amazon.

In any case, enjoy your tortured logic and your need to find offense where it doesn't belong. You're only empowering the abusers by going after those they abuse.

[GinaMaria]

81. You are too emotional

when you start telling people what they think, you need to take a break.

People can be victims. Businesses are not people and should never have the same rights as people and are IN MY OPINION not victims, they are non human entities. People do work in businesses which is why people running businesses need to be careful about the decisions they make or don't make as it effects many people's lives. All this because I believe Amazon should issue a statement/apology and make attempts to prevent things like this? I can't believe how much people care about one person's boycott and opinion.

[RoyGBiv]

87. LOL!!!

Perhaps you're right, 'cause I find that hysterical.

For the record, I'm not telling you what you think. I'm just reading what you write, which, boiled down, is a wordy way of saying you make the rules about what is and is not acceptable.

Your "opinion" is based on a seriously flawed approach to assigning responsibility. Not all opinions are equal.

[GinaMaria]

93. I know what I find acceptable to me

In no way did I state what was acceptable to you or anyone else. Again, if you are satisfied with their response why do care that I am not?


Your own words:

In other words You think you make the rules.

For the record, I'm not telling you what you think.

[RoyGBiv]

95. You're entitled to your opinion ...

And I'm entitled to my opinion, which is that your opinion is based on a fundamentally flawed standard that victimizes victims.

[GinaMaria]

99. yes you are entitled to your opinion

as am I. Which is what I've been saying. My opinion is that you are too emotional and extreme to continue a conversation. The belief that corporations are not human and therefore do not have human rights, or the same priveleges under the law is a polarizing concept. There continues to be a lot of debate on this topic. I was excused from jury duty based on this belief. I stand by it. A corporation and a human being are not equal. Humans are equals. You can label that any way you choose. For a future discussion: If a corporation kills people, who goes to prison?

[MessiahRp]

44. As someone who works for a large retailer and controls their amazon store

I think you're underestimating the ability Amazon has to see some of these things.

Our store alone puts up 22,000 listings. There are thousands of people and companies adding listings of their merchandise which also could be 10,000 or more up there. Amazon doesn't touch a lot of these items.

In 99.9% of cases the merchandise is sent up automatically via XML feeds or by the storefront owner adding items manually through Seller Central.

Because of the massive amounts of products Amazon doesn't have the capability to review each and every product.

HOWEVER if they are alerted to products that have issues with them (loaded with inflammatory tags, put up in the wrong category, linking off of Amazon to other sites) they usually act promptly to take the offending item down and warn the storefront. Disciplinary actions begin with that warning but in cases where Amazon's TOS were violated and it caused some reputable harm to them, they could suspend or ban that storefront from selling in the future.

The problem here is that Amazon uses UPC codes to force merge listings.

For example: Say Store A sells the Obama Mask for $14.99 and Store B sells it for $16.99. Store A's original listing usually stays in place even after they have sold the item out. Store B, Store C or however many other stores will now be listed as the "Sold By" store in the main part of the listing and their lowest price will be available but they will be forced to accept what Store A set up for the description, etc as what shows to the customer unless they call Amazon to have their TAMs fix the item.

On an item like this, with so many sellers selling this item (up until a few weeks ago my company was selling these masks on Amazon on a listing with at least half a dozen competitors) there's a lot of product info merging and it's hard to tell who did what after a few weeks of the listing updating.

Also people can add tags to products. It has been used by people on the right (mostly) and the left to label enemies of their political positions. As stated above, we're just as guilty when we label Ann Coulter's books with tags (not that it's not true).

Amazon was made aware of this issue and resolved it as quickly as possible. I'm pretty sure they deleted most every "terrorist" tagged Obama item on the site after this was found as well to avoid any other negative press from hitting them.

Not everything is cut and dry. Sometimes rogue people mess with sites that have even the best intentions.

Rp

[merwin]

49. You need to stop immediately and face the facts!!!

The technical staf of 50,000 employees working around the clock to police items is more than enough to keep this kind of thing under control!

[AlbertCat]

72. Just look at whom Amazon is associating with!

I'll never shop there because they palled around with terrorists!


Oh...

Jesus, Gina Maria,.... get a life! Calm down!

[GinaMaria]

67. Thanks for this info and your reasonable response

I just took a look at the mask on Amazon and it is sold by different vendors. Amazon did not enter it into inventory. It seems a real disservice to small businesses relying on Amazon for traffic and sales, to allow users to tag their merchandise, especially like this. Do you have the option as a vendor to turn tags off? I understand user reviews on the actual item or service, but this seems unfair to the small business.

[MessiahRp]

112. Unfortunately we don't

My company has Obama, McCain and Palin masks and all have been tagged this way by Amazon browsers. I put in a request to the Technical Account Managers to turn off tags or to ban incendiary tagging (via filters) but it will probably require a change by engineers to their system to be able to do this on items specifically as the entire system is set up one way system-wide and nearly everything is an automated process.

I think when it comes to political items, tagging is sort of an experiment in how to apply a message board flame to a product's search results.

I see the value of tagging in non-controversial products because not all retailers know every aspect of their products or who they appeal to and this can expand the universe in which those products are identified but for something like this, the exercise seems pointless.

Hopefully my support ticket will help in getting tags pulled off of these items.

It's bad publicity for everyone involved (Amazon and the Sellers).

Rp

[Matariki]

109. I used to work there. Amazon is located in uber liberal Seattle, they're not right wing tools.

They have a lot of automated processes and people to fix crap like that when it's brought to their attention.

I used to work as an editor fixing stuff like that & tagged customer reviews. The automation kind of sucks but they'd have to hire an army of editors to keep up with that sort of thing.

[sendero]

125. Ur a dummy..

.... learn what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself.

[bitchkitty]

130. Actually, they're not.

It's called Web 2.0 - and that's a good thing. What happened here is that people abused the interactive nature of the site.

I have no idea what political ideology Amazon.com holds, but in this case, it was not their fault. If they took the ability of customers to interact and offer opinion, then the site would be useless to anyone who shops there.

[Maestro]

31. I agree.

The tags are produced by the viewers and shoppers of the content. Once it was brought to their attention, they removed it. For example, I have tagged all of Coulter's crap as "hate literature."

[GinaMaria]

40. see post 37

[create.peace]

11. these are tags created by users- go here to suggest removal

http://www.amazon.com/tag/terrorist/ref=tag_dpp_cust_it...
go to next set of items after this, too, 2 more masks so tagged. these are tagged by amazon users, not amazon.

[LisaL]

127. Oh for crying out loud.

Somebody tagged it with it.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. It was probly done by a concerted RW "tag attack."

Amazon does a lot of its categorizing automatically, based on user input. I imagine somewhere a bunch of wingnuts all decided to add a "terrorist" tag or otherwise suggest a terrorist classification, and the Amazon bots responded to them.

[pinniped]

3. McLame doesn't seem to be affected by errors such as....

his stupid name being misspelled on ballots and costume error bullshit.

[GinaMaria]

5. I just emailed them

I demanded an explanation, apology and a remedy for the situation and included the link here. This is disgusting and they will lose my business just like the United Way did. This is beyond partisan. It is vicious.


They have a 'call me' feature, where you can speak to someone directly. I think you have to have an account in order to use the help section, but give it a try anyway. They need to issue a public apology.

[kirby]

17. You are overreacting...

Any user is allowed to 'tag' content. It sounds to me like some freeper asshole tagged it. Once Amazon was made aware of it, they took corrective action.

Your reaction is like bitching about some freeper post on DU during the interval between the post being made and the time a moderator removes it.

[rcrush]

18. Yes

Mostly I'd never come to the defense of Amazon cause they are so damn expensive but you need to be fair. If I went around on this site screaming "Barack Obama is a Ni%$#er!" Then DU wouldnt be responsible for it unless they refused to delete the post.

[Hugin]

20. I guess you weren't around during the FBI investigation then?

There were some posts on DU threatening Bush (Turns out they were freeper planted posts).

Somewhere in the Archives Skinner's posts on the subject exist.

So, yes, these things are taken seriously by outside parties.

[GinaMaria]

26. Do you seriously think

that Amazon did not expect this kind of response when they put an Obama item up for sale? Would they expect an extreme user response to a Palin or McCain item? They are responsible. From a PR perspective this is bad for them and they need to issue a statement. As someone who spends way too much money at Amazon, I can find other places to shop. They are a business not an opinion blog. They can cater to the RW idiots as much as they want. They will not have my business until they publicly apologize.

[merwin]

54. Try this link out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_m...

And for a response to your "catering to RW idiots", try this search at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3...

Behind Every Terrorist There is a Bush
Bush's Last Day T-Shirt
BUSH: Creating Terrorists Faster Than We Can Kill Them Bumper Sticker

Also notice that almost none of the things on the list are actually sold by Amazon. They provide the storefront capabilities for other businesses.

[GinaMaria]

60. wiki vs. amazon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaim...

For starters

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.


Amazon is a retail business not an information sharing site. It's primary purpose is to sell and make a profit not to share information.

from Amazon
Visitors may post reviews, comments, photos, and other content; send e-cards and other communications; and submit suggestions, ideas, comments, questions, or other information, so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable and does not consist of or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of a card or other content. Amazon reserves the right (but not the obligation) to remove or edit such content, but does not regularly review posted content.

[merwin]

63. If they claimed the obligation, they would be sued out of their minds.

No company would do that. Then some idiot would tell them to take off the Obama/Christian tag and sue them when they don't remove it.

And actually, their tag system is an open-content collaborative system as well. A voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a product recommendation "web". The structure of it allows anyone to alter its content. They also advise you that nothing found in the tags has necessarily been reviewed by people at all.

I don't see anywhere in Amazon's tag system that guarantees accurate or reliable tags.

And yes, while they are a for-profit business, part of that business is providing a recommendations system that is open to the public and minimally regulated, just like Wikipedia.

Just because someone has a business doesn't mean they aren't allowed to have any kind of social networking and collaboration.

[bobd0]

85. WTF, do you work for Amazon? Have a store front? Stop being an apologist. n/t

[kirby]

89. I am using common sense...

While I emailed Amazon to complain about some futher tags I found, it just amazes me how knee jerk / conspiratorial people can be around here.

Lets assume I drove by your business and you had a swastika spray painted on your front door. Should I immediately organize a boycott of your business because you are a nazi supporter?

[bobd0]

90. Your analogy doesn't work. This wasn't vandalism. This was on Amazon and it was intentionallly done

by one of their sellers.

Listen, if you feel you need to spend your money on Amazon to support such garbage, or if you're worried your storefront might lose business, or whatever, that's your business.

Thirty years ago the people who used to make Jeep vehicles gave me a hard time on a warranty claim. I went to the regional office personally. They still refused to settle the situation. I used to buy a new Jeep every three years back then. I told them I'd never buy another Jeep. I never did.

I told Amazon I'll never shop there again. Why are you wasting your time?

[kirby]

92. My analogy is pretty close...

You don't know what you are talking about. I didn't say anything about vandalism. My point was that someone who sees a swastika on your business really has no idea what happened. You are simply jumping to a conclusion for which you have no basis.

While I do spoke online, including Amazon.com, I am not affiliated with them or run a store or anything.

I will assume you do not use eBay either.

[bobd0]

103. Listen, genius, if someone painted a swastika on my business I'd call it vandalism unless I was a

Nazi and then I'd deserve exactly what Amazon deserves for allowing one of their vendors to paint their own brand of fascism on their business. I have a basis. Amazon allowed this either through their failure to design a system to prevent it or through their neglect at monitoring listings. Get that?

And if you aren't selling on Amazon why bother trying to influence my decision not to buy there?

[kirby]

106. Why do I waste my time?

I guess I just get defensive when a mob mentality based on faulty logic raises its ugly head. It is like when somone who support Obama makes a statement embarrassing to the campaign. All the repugs jump on Obama as if that person speaks for Obama. You are no better in this instance.

[bobd0]

107. I don't know, why are you wasting your time?

It's like when some huge multi-national corporation allows their millions of hits a day web site to be used for propaganda. How's that for rearing an ugly head.

But you go right ahead and keep defending them. And if McCain/Palin steal another election, just as Bush stole the last two, you go right ahead and ignore that too and feel good about being better than all those "repugs".

[merwin]

117. Actually, it's not the sellers who tag the products

It's the customers. Hence why they call it "Tags Customers Associate with This Product".

Did you even take the time to understand what's going on?

[happygoluckytoyou]

8. ABOUT AS BAD AS THE HANGING PALIN PROP.... any chance we can find a real ISSUE ? ? ?

[cosmicone]

9. The only way I'd ever buy anything from Amazon again is

if they quickly investigate and expose the hands of the wingnuts in this before the election.

[create.peace]

15. here's one- go for it, i am

http://www.amazon.com/tag/terrorist/products/AO5GXMESED...

[Hugin]

12. Darn, and I was so looking forward to getting a Kindle for X-mas.

*tsk*

Bezos better get his ass back on Oprah and explain this one away.

[NashVegas]

13. Is This Because Of Amazon's "User Tags"?

Or is Bezos just an ass these days?


Guess who?

terrorist (6)
anti-american (4)
lipstick (4)
palin (4)
idiot (3)
nutcase (2)
scary (2)
weird (2)
bonehead (1)
closet grandmother (1)
erectile dysfunction (1)
fascist theocrat (1)
loon (1)
loser (1)
racist (1)
secessionist (1)
ticket drag (1)
ugly woman (1)

and who?

terrorist (18)
mccain (14)
scary (7)
senile (5)

war monger (5)
loser (5)
evil (6)
palin (9)

costume (5)
idiot (5)
lipstick (6)

[onenote]

22. almost certainly because of the 'tags'

[LynneSin]

36. It was not Amazon that had it listed like that - we could do the same with McCain's mask

they cleaned it up - good enough for me.

Now where is my damn package from Amazon.

[Ian David]

14. Did they list McCain and Palin under Nazi? n/t

[scarface2004]

61. look under nazi sadist!

there s mkane and palin!

[rcrush]

16. Bezos isnt stupid

THe people who use Amazon are mostly stupid though. Someone put up an Obama mask and tagged it with Terrorist. Mystery solved.

[kirby]

19. Who is Steve Dekker?

Look how this guy has tagged other products related to Obama. There is also other anti-gay tags.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/tagging/customer-tags/products...

[rcrush]

21. Some guy thats lurking here probably

I saw the same link posted in the thread earlier then Amazon removed it. Now its back.

[bobd0]

110. What a coincidence. I worked for a supervisor named Dekker once and he just happened to be one of

the biggest, if not THE biggest, asshole I ever had the extreme displeasure to work for.

Like I said, just a coincidence, I suppose. Unless these two are somehow related.

[keepCAblue]

37. Still not fixed...

http://www.amazon.com/tag/terrorists/ref=tag_dpp_cust_i...

[MessiahRp]

46. "Recently Tagged"

What Amazon probably did was take down all tags labeled "terrorist" and relating to Barack Obama and deleted them before. The problem is Freepers can go back in and type in new tags for these if "terrorist" hasn't been banned from the system completely. And that creates an issue because "terrorist" is an appropriate tag for books or movies dealing with terrorism or specific terrorists.

Rp

[keepCAblue]

53. they can filter tags...

...to omit "terrorists" or variations thereof from being cross-tagged with "obama"

The freepers are keeping busy with their tagging - for every one "terrorist" tagged Obama product Amazon takes down, the freepers tag four more...

http://www.amazon.com/tag/terrorists/products/ref=tag_n...

[MessiahRp]

57. Well since my company sells Obama masks that have been tagged

I have put in a request to block Terrorist-related tags and other incendiary terms from showing up on Obama items. In fairness I also requested that "Nazi" be blocked from McCain items.

Here's hoping something can be done.

Rp

[merwin]

118. But CAN they filter tags to omit variations based on cross-tagging?

I don't think their system is that complex. Hence, the current situation.

[marshall]

48. This is going to be a continued confusion because of the similarity of the names

Even Ted Kennedy got confused and called him Osama Obama.
It'll sink in eventually.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

73. How 'bout we call him "Mr. President"?

Just saying (y'all make sure to vote, too).

[PatrynXX]

56. Something similar happened before I think.

can't remember where though.. it was in the search engine and monkey or gorilla came up with Martin Luther King Jr.


Really try to avoid them when possible. They aren't the old amazon.

[kleec]

65. I called

I called amazon and talked with a representative and he tried to wiggle out by saying they don't control...blah blah. I interrupted him and said it's time for accountability, your name is on the site, you are responsible and it is the most disgusting and unAmerican thing they could do particularly at a time in this country with the repubs doing their usual stirring up trouble behavior. He said they have been getting lots of calls and were calling a meeting with the higher ups I guess. I don't believe they quite expected the response they have received. I cannot believe they would stoop to that level - I truly cannot. I asked 'what the hell is wrong with you people'......he said.....'I don't know. Go figure.

[TerribleLarryDingle]

69. With all the other Bullshit Like GOP STEALING ELECTIONS

This is hardly a story to waste time with.

I will still be buying from Amazon.

Don't waste your time with this NON-Story.

[kleec]

78. Nope

it's in the details.......let little things slide and open the doors for worse! Look what happened to this country by not paying attention to details, or being ignored when they were brought to light.......no more ignoring.

[jberryhill]

75. DU Has Screaming Headline Putting "Barack Obama" and "Terrorist" In It /nt

[Breathe]

76. Ask Amazon to repudiate this seller

I wrote to Amazon and politely asked how this could have occurred and what they plan to do about it now. I asked them to issue a statement and an apology. I also asked that if this is the responsibility of an employee, they be fired. If it is a seller's responsbility, that they lose their right to list their goods. And finally, I asked how they plan to avoid such listings in the future.

I can't know the deal but they know and I want an answer. And I'm not returning to shop there until I get one. (And since I have done all my Christmas shopping on Amazon for the last five years, they are losing a returning customer.)

Here's a link to send them an email:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/placing-order...

[bobd0]

83. I'm now a former Amazon customer. I sent this email to Amazon and I urge everyone to do likewise.

Dear Amazon,

Over the years I've purchased many items from Amazon and its vendors but I won't be purchasing anything from Amazon ever again because I just read a story in the LA Times on how Amazon listed a Barack Obama Halloween mask under the heading "Arab costume, terrorist". I hope the moron who listed it as such had a good laugh because that laugh just cost Amazon ALL of my future business. I've emptied my Wish List, changed my email address to a fictitious address, and now I'm signing out of Amazon FOR GOOD and clearing all of your cookies from my computers. If you by some chance have my old email address don't bother replying because if you contact me I will block all email from you as well.

I sincerely hope every one of your customers who find this as offensive as I do will follow the same course of action that I have. I'm going to post this to every internet message board I can find and hope that they do.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/obam...

Goodbye.

Sincerely,
A former Amazon customer

Here is Amazon's email address.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-quest...

[LiberalHeart]

84. I'd never quit Amazon over this. They aren't the ones who listed it. Go after the vendor, not them.

[bobd0]

86. If you want to enable Amazon go right ahead. I've made my decision. FUCK AMAZON. n/t

[LiberalHeart]

108. Yes, you made your decision. It's just not logical.

[bobd0]

122. Who the hell are you to determine what a logical course of action is for me?

[msallied]

138. Your actions determine your idiocy for us. It's not too hard, really.

[merwin]

119. If you're so content with your decision, why do you keep rationalizing it?

[bobd0]

123. Because people here keep attacking it.

[msallied]

139. The same way we'd attack a Freeper who makes similar faulty leaps in logic.

[TerribleLarryDingle]

88. Cut off your nose to spite your face?

[bobd0]

91. Cut off my nose? Do you actually think Amazon is the only source on the internet?

Don't be ridiculous.

Buy.com
Booksamillion.com

Just to name two. Google will supply you with myriad others.

[RoyGBiv]

94. Booksamillion, eh?

The site that was selling Obama Waffles?

[bobd0]

96. Then they're off my list too! :)

[plaintiff]

102. I'll be ordering a new HDTV from them this afternoon.

...

[bobd0]

105. Keep consuming, consumer. And keep enabling more of the same. Great job.

I don't care if you buy your next car on Amazon. They've seen the last dollar I'll ever spend there. I can live with that. Can you live with enabling more of the same?

[plaintiff]

113. Blaming the victim isn't my style. It's what freeptards do.

...

[bobd0]

115. The victim in this is the Obama campaign, not Amazon. But I'm not surprised that you don't

get the point. This is, in large part, how we've come to the point in America where a president can break the law with impunity, a drug addict like Limbaugh can continue to spew his lies, racism, and hatred unimpeded, and a political party like the Republicans can steal election after election. Because people like you don't get it. You can't even recognize what the game is, no less figure out how to win it.

With no consequences there is no responsibility. Amazon is interested in one thing, and one thing only -- getting our money into their pockets. So they designed a system to do just that without taking responsibility for the consequences of allowing other people to use their massive internet presence for whatever they like. No consequences, no accountability, no responsibility -- and you have some jerk off spreading more hatred and lies against a presidential candidate that offers more hope than any I've seen since John F. Kennedy. You have hate mongers like McCain/Palin intentionally inciting their nut case base to do things like we're hearing about this afternoon.

When and where does it stop? It stops when we insist that it stops by holding EVERYONE accountable for their actions and the actions they allow to be taken in their name.

But you keep buying at Amazon and keep calling people who disagree with you "freeptards" -- just as a "freeptard" would.

[plaintiff]

116. Buh bye, Einstein.

[merwin]

120. So you want a police state, where nothing bad can ever be said?

There's benefits to truly open systems, like Digg. Sure, people can abuse it, but it's minimal, and algorithms evolve after time to resolve issues.

Sure, they're in it for the money. But they also wanted to provide a system where customers can recommend other products and create a network of related searches to get more accurate searches.

Unless you are a software developer with experience in creating social networking/collaboration networks and can provide a WORKING algorithm to weed out malicious tags on a huge scale such as theirs (hundreds of thousands of products), your whining about it means little.

BTW, did you also boycott Google when someone exploited their search algorithm and landed Bush's bio as the first search result for "Miserable Failure". I bet you laughed, as did the rest of us. Should Google have apologized for that?

Quit taking it too seriously. It's a few racist assholes doing racist asshole stuff to exploit Amazon's tag system. I'm pretty sure the people who see that terrorist costume/Obama connection on Amazon and decide to vote McCain because of it are already racist assholes that we don't want in our party.

I'm done with this thread.

[bobd0]

121. Both you and the Einstein contributor still don't get it and probably never will but

that's your problem.

I can't understand why you people are such avid Amazon supporters unless you have Amazon storefronts or are holding on to A LOT of Amazon stock in hopes the market will somehow miraculously recover from its incredible Republican engineered descent.

FUCK AMAZON. Who needs them? If you feel Amazon is that vital to your survival then by all means continue your support. But please don't try to convince me to continue mine.

Buy buy now.

[bitchkitty]

131. You're not getting it.

Would you prefer that cyber-commerce be left up solely to merchants? By interacting with the public, the site provides consumers with comparisons and choices, and facts that might help them to make a wise decision.

You don't understand the technology behind it, and you're getting all up in arms over something that is not Amazon's fault.

So don't buy from Amazon - but please educate yourself before you start spouting about where the fault lies. I see several have tried to educate others in this thread, so I won't waste any more keystrokes.

[bobd0]

132. No, you're not getting it. Without consequences Amazon will allow the current system to continue and

abuses will continue right along with it.

Some people enable abuse. Others hold those who create the conditions that make abuse possible responsible by holding their feet to the fire. If more of you would speak to Amazon in the only language the understand -- MONEY -- then Amazon would make changes necessary to stop anyone from posting politically damaging garbage on a sight that gets MILLIONS OF HITS EVERY DAY.

But you go right ahead and defend Amazon. You people are really shop-a-holic junkies.

[bitchkitty]

134. I'm not a shop-a-holic.

But I know what the evolution of the Web has been, and I like interactivity. The exchange of ideas, opinions, information. You want Amazon to restrict the ability of people to comment, based on the the stupid actions of a few dozen assholes. That's a fascist attitude.

So you go right ahead with your ignorant posturing. I want the Net to stay free, and I don't want opinion stifled.

If it bothers you so much, then keep a fucking eye on things like this and notify the company BEFORE the stupid freepers notify the media.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.