In this article, we will examine Amazon‘s decision to stop the sale of books that define LGBTQ+ individuals as mentally ill.
In fact, it all starts with a question asked by a Republican senator in America. The Republican senator asks why Ryan T. Anderson‘s book When Harry Become Sally, known for his views against same-sex marriage, hasn’t been sold on Amazon.
The company is responding to the senator in a public letter. He states that retailers are free to sell the books they want, and as a company, they prefer not to sell such a separatist idea that has caused great suffering to LGBTQ+ individuals.
First of all, of course, we are against the definition of LGBTQ individuals as mentally ill. Apart from a very minority group who use the situation for benefit, we see that these people are excluded from working life in many parts of the world, marginalized because they reveal their identities and left alone even by their families. Of course, we defend the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, but we think it would be an easy approach to congratulate Amazon and pass it by.
This is a decision that should be considered. First of all, Amazon holds 54% of print book sales and 80% of e-book sales in the US due to the capitalist system’s tendency to create a monopoly. The fact that the company makes such a decision alone can almost even be considered as a ban, as it will affect other retailers as well. So, is it right to ban it or prevent its sale?
As it is thought, I will not consider the decision within the scope of freedom of expression. The striking aspect of the decision is this: As I wrote earlier in the DeSo review on Patreon, you know that Twitter had previously silenced former American President Donald Trump due to his separatist decisions. We all supported Twitter for advocating for human rights. However, we have never questioned that we are faced with a structure that can silence even the American President, and that these decisions are taken by which committees and by which democratic (!) methods.
These decisions are announced in parallel with the dominant views of the public. However, if we relive the times when people acted hysterically with fascist thoughts, as in the past, we do not know how these decisions will be made.
It is possible to meet people who talk about the negative litigation processes of the internet with companies such as Amazon and Twitter, which we see as human rights defenders in little-known blogs.
Conclusions That Can Be Delivered From Amazon’s Decision
Yes, we find similar decisions taken by global companies as positive but we invite people to follow these decisions. We’re curious to know the answers to some questions that wouldn’t have been answered if the senator didn’t ask. We call on these companies to regularly publish their decisions on similar issues. We think people should force multinational companies to be more transparent. Because in a world where even the American president can be silenced, we are witnessing that the power is slowly passing from the hands of the states into the hands of companies.
- By the way, it is sometimes criticized for being unnecessarily emphasized, but I find it right that Netflix includes an LGBTQ+ individual in almost every series. I liken this to the attitude of those who criticize feminists. And they say that all humanity should be equal. He was making criticisms of feminism. Injustice on one side of the scale weighs more. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to eliminate the inequality of that side and to give more space to that side’s suffering.
- On the other hand, Amazon has an app called Smile that allows you to transfer 0.5% of all your spending to a charity of your choice without charging you anything. There are news that among the institutions included in this application, there are also institutions that have opposing views towards LGBTQ+ individuals.
The 21st century is very gray dear reader. You can read that news via the link.