Culture Amazon Bans Roosh V's "Rape Apologia" Books - Cites vague "violations" of content policies

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Since the first version of this thread was deleted for using a "shit source", I've remade it with multiple "good" sources (or as good as sources can be in this current media landscape).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...e-apologist-roosh_us_5b96ea09e4b0511db3e54945

For more than a decade, America’s tech giants have helped author and self-described “pickup artist” Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh earn a living from writing and selling books that denigrate women and glorify sexual assault.

Amazon sells Valizadeh’s self-published books, which detail his confessions of rape. Twitter verified his account, which he uses to promote them. YouTube has allowed him to publish videos and livestreams where viewers can donate money to him. Altogether, Valizadeh’s empire of hate brings in more than $60,000 a year, he claims — money that allows him to continue publishing books the Anti-Defamation League described as how-to manuals for sexual predators.

Now that’s finally starting to change.

On Monday, Amazon took the rare step of removing nine of more than a dozen books written by Valizadeh from its website, including his most recent one, published Friday. Amazon banned the books after HuffPost reached out to ask whether Valizadeh’s content was in violation of the company’s content guidelines for self-published material — but not before it hit the top 1,000 books sold on Amazon that day. Valizadeh sold more than 2,000 copies at $23 each before Amazon knocked the books off its site, he claimed later.

HuffPost repeatedly attempted to talk to Valizadeh, who declined a female reporter’s interview request (he instructs all women who want to communicate with him to first show him a photo of themselves). He blocked another HuffPost reporter on Twitter after ignoring his emailed requests for comment. But on Twitter and his website, Valizadeh has expressed shock that his newest book has been taken off Amazon.

Far-right propagandist and “Pizzagate” pusher Mike Cernovich rushed to Valizadeh’s defense on Monday, whining over the removals. Cernovich is also verified on Twitter.

Since abandoning his job at a pharmaceutical company to become a full-time “game teacher” more than a decade ago, Valizadeh has admitted that his livelihood depends entirely on “game”-related sales. (“Game” is the word he uses to describe his pickup routines.)

His blogs and books, which he says he publishes for “heterosexual, masculine men,” conflate masculinity with sexually aggressive behavior. He preaches that “no means no — until it means yes,” and offers personal anecdotes to illustrate how men should treat women. In one 2011 book, he recounted his pursuit of an intoxicated woman in Iceland.

“In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated,” he wrote. “If a girl is willing to walk home with me, she’s going to get the dick no matter how much she has drunk.” In the same chapter, he described how he once “jammed” his penis into a woman who was “half-asleep.”

Tech platforms such as Amazon, Twitter and YouTube have no Constitutional obligation to allow all points of view on their platforms. The First Amendment restricts the government’s powers, not those of private companies. But tech platforms often cite free speech to defend opening their platforms to white supremacists, violent misogynists and anti-Semites. And a 1996 law, the Communications Decency Act, shields platforms from liability for most user-generated content, allowing them to decide what kind of content they will permit on their sites.

Platform companies make more money when they have more people, racist or not, using their platforms. Their scale and reach make them useful — and also make it hard for victims of abusive behavior to avoid using their services. And platform companies are often more responsive to negative press coverage than they are to user complaints about abusive behavior. It was only after HuffPost reached out that Amazon removed Valizadeh’s books from its site.

Valizadeh still freely promotes the books, along with his racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views, to his more than 40,000 followers on Twitter, which verified his account after he publicly advocated for decriminalizing rape in 2015. To his apparent delight and amusement, Twitter dismisses many of the reports it receives about his offensive tweets. A Twitter representative declined to comment on Valizadeh’s verified account and instead directed HuffPost to a tweet thread about why Twitter’s verification program is not currently a “top priority” for the company.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey acknowledged last week that the company needs “a complete reboot of our verification system,” though he did not expand on what that will entail or what the timeline will be. Dorsey and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg were summoned to testify before Congress on Wednesday about their platforms’ content moderation practices, among other issues.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has also been a valuable promotion tool for Valizadeh. (Google conspicuously declined to send a representative to last week’s hearings.) He uses the platform to boost his book sales.

“The last time I did a promotion on the livestream on YouTube, about 60 of you bought it,” Valizadeh said in an August video. “That’s my food income for the month, which was cool.”

YouTube has also directly helped Valizadeh profit off misogyny: During livestream broadcasts, viewers who donate money via YouTube’s “Super Chat” feature will have their questions about women and sex answered by Valizadeh himself. He raised roughly $100 from viewers from one recent two-hour livestream.

Some of the fans Valizadeh attracts via Twitter and YouTube donate money to him via FreeStartr, a crowdfunding platform, to ensure he can continue writing. FreeStartr, which prides itself as having “an absolute free speech guarantee,” did not respond to HuffPost’s repeated requests for comment.

After HuffPost reached out to YouTube, the company deleted one video from Valizadeh’s channel for violating its hate speech policy and banned him from livestreaming for three months. Valizadeh now has one “strike” against his account. If a user receives three strikes within a three-month period, YouTube will terminate their channel.

Valizadeh says he also collects advertising revenue from his blogs, where he advocates repealing women’s suffrage and encourages men to commit crimes such as recording sex with a hidden camera. The blogs are sustained by Cloudflare, a web service provider that refuses to regulate clients’ content and that also secures websites for neo-Nazis and pedophiles.

Valizadeh has long anticipated Amazon kicking him off its platform.

“If Amazon shuts me down, I can still sell books directly,” he said in an October 2017 podcast on YouTube, brainstorming the options he’d have to make money without tech giants’ support.

“A lot of people, they really hate me. I think maybe millions hate me,” he added, noting that he’s hopeful the “couple, maybe, I dunno, hundred thousand or less that do like me are willing to go the extra mile to buy any books that I write.”

But Valizadeh doesn’t have to worry about that quite yet. Most of his books are still available on Amazon. And he still has Twitter and YouTube to promote his sales.

And the most important bit:

It was only after HuffPost reached out that Amazon removed Valizadeh’s books from its site.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...e-campaigner-Roosh-boasts-sexual-assault.html

Amazon has ditched nine books by 'pro-rape' campaigner 'Roosh' who boasts about sexual assault in his vile 'pick-up manuals'.

The retail firm took the rare step of banning self-published books by Daryush 'Roosh' Valizadeh, which detail confessions of rape.

That includes his most recent book, published last week, which had already sold 1,000 copies before it was removed from the online store.

Valizadeh, who is also a virulent homophobe, still regularly promotes his racist, sexist and anti-semitic views on Twitter, where he has more than 40,000 followers.

He is also still allowed to publish videos on YouTube where his viewers can make financial donations – contributing to the $60,000 (£46,000) he takes home a year.

Amazon took down the books after it was contacted by Huffington Post for comment on an article around whether Valizadeh's content violated their guidelines.

Valizadeh is on record as advocating women be banned from voting, describing a woman's value as dependent on her 'fertility and beauty', and stating that women with eating disorders make the best girlfriends.

He left a job at a pharmaceutical company to become a 'game teacher' which involves describing how he picks up women.

Amazon has banned a number of books from its site over the years, many of which have been written by holocaust deniers.

The firm confirmed to MailOnline it had removed the books but did not comment on specific reasons for removing the products.

Valizadeh graduated from the University of Maryland with a degree in microbiology and soon after started a local blog called DC Bachelor.

By 2007, he felt he had established a considerable following and decided to pen his first book, called 'Bang'.

Inside the book, he described the 'ruthlessly optimised process' that 'enabled me to put my penis inside' various women.

He later travelled abroad researching a slew of other titles that include Bang Colombia, Bang Iceland, Don't Bang Denmark, Bang Poland and Bang Lithuania.

He has more than 15 self-published books, many of which have been widely condemned as 'rape guides' by media, residents and politicians who live in the countries he is writing about.

He once said: 'My default opinion of any girl I meet is worthless dirty wh**e until proven otherwise.'

In October 2012, Valizadeh decided to expand his online presence by creating the website 'Return of Kings'.

The website publishes a string of 'neomasculine' articles which claim women should not work, women should have their behaviour and decisions 'controlled by men' and has even encouraged males to record consensual sex with a hidden camera to ensure they are not 'falsely accused of rape'.

Other articles claim that one in four women are 'certifiably mentally ill' and should not be unable to live autonomously in today's society.

In 2015, Valizadeh wrote one of his more offensive and reviled articles – 'How to Stop Rape' – in which he claims the US government should legalise rape on private property.

He has also started to tour countries where he tries gives speeches to an often small band of followers.

Despite a 42,500-strong petition calling for his entry to be blocked, he made his way to Montreal, in Canada, last August.

In the city he and his 34 supporters were met with a mob of angry protesters who threw beer in his face and chased him into a building as his followers scurried away.

Fearful he would be swamped by angry protesters again, the 'anti-feminist' hired extra security for an appearance in Toronto, which according to the Huffington Post , only had around 50 attendees.

In September 2016, a petition was also launched to have Valizadeh's self-published 'pro-rape' books removed from the online retail giant Amazon.

The self-styled pick up artist is now facing backlash in Australia over proposed 'tribal meetings', where his followers can meet in a bid to connect with 'like-minded men'.

A petition - similar to the one in Canada - was launched soon after he started tweeting about a possible appearance, which demanded the police and government work together to stop him from gaining a visa.

He has revelled in the media attention, telling female journalists that he would give them an interview if they performed fellatio on him.

Personal thoughts: I have a distinct feeling that Roosh V isn't a rapist or rape apologist, and that his pick-up artistry books are fairly innocuous. Then again, I haven't read them, so...

Roosh V himself talked about it:

http://www.rooshv.com/amazon-has-banned-9-of-my-books-without-explanation
https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1039203362925772800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWMm08LcrT4

 
Amazon bans all kinds of self-pubbled "erotica" for being too rapey, to the point authors won't mention characters having wine with dinner if there's sex later in the story lest an oversensitive employee deem it a depiction of rape by intoxication. Roosh's stuff looks to basically be dub-con erotic fantasies for incels pretending to be self-help, so this is really nothing outside Amazon's established practice.
 
Free speech and all that, yes. But should a private entity be compelled to distribute anyone else's speech?

On the one hand, sure, Amazon-first-amendment-silencing-the-heretics. But on the other, do you want to be compelled to distribute anything just because you distribute some things?
 
I can see where the desire to censor this material comes from, but in going the route of censorship the question of where to draw the line comes up inevitably and there is honestly no good answer. What is the risk of allow this to be published anyway? I doubt his customer base is very large, and further doubt that he has very much recruiting power. He and his people may be shitty, but you won't get them to change just by censoring their leader, and may just have to accept that some of them will be shitty no matter how you try to alter them.

In terms of Amazon's rights as a private company; in principle I agree that they should be able to choose who they do business, however due to their size I am tempted to hold them to a somewhat different standard, as if they choose to discriminate they can potentially do a lot of damage to an individual or group.

Free speech and all that, yes. But should a private entity be compelled to distribute anyone else's speech?

On the one hand, sure, Amazon-first-amendment-silencing-the-heretics. But on the other, do you want to be compelled to distribute anything just because you distribute some things?

That is the issue isn't it? There seems to be no real answer where everyone wins. Ultimately I must simply implore them and other such companies to take a hands off approach.

Perhaps this is all merely a symptom of a larger problem though; that being, several large tech firms hold the markets hostage, were it not so he could simply move to another platform, and yet here we are; in a situation where several large firms can change the face of politics if they feel so inclined. If only creating a platform to rival the Facebooks and Amazons of the world were move viable, none of this would be a problem.
 
You have the right to be an asshole, but other people also have the right to tell you you're being dumb for being an asshole and banning this asshole's dumb book.

I think I lost the point in there somewhere.
 
Free speech and all that, yes. But should a private entity be compelled to distribute anyone else's speech?

On the one hand, sure, Amazon-first-amendment-silencing-the-heretics. But on the other, do you want to be compelled to distribute anything just because you distribute some things?
That would merit discussion for a natural monopoly. Amazon doesn't meet that requirement here though.

I don't want the law telling Amazon they have to host content, that's for sure. But I don't want Amazon telling me what is and is not okay for me to read. But the law isn't the solution to my concern.
 
My biggest issue with this is that they just took them down now. Amazon obviously doesn't have a problem with his books, they are just kowtowing to the baying mob. And yet everyone's response is 'well they can do what they want with their platform'. Ten years ago, the very idea of Amazon banning a book would have been unthinkable - but the Overton window has been under a constant assault from the regressive left to the point where this isn't even an issue now apparently, what's important is that the government doesn't come in and tell them they have to uphold freedom of the press. I don't want the government telling companies shit either, but it's interesting how the conversation has shifted.

And we all should know what will happen now - they got one book pulled, which means they can get other books pulled. And they will. How long do you think it will be before diary of a Supreme gentleman gets pulled, or men are better than women, or any number of other modern satire that regressives dislike? How will Amazon justify keeping mein kampf available - because it's historical? Is that really good enough? What about the protocols of the elders of zion? And when Amazon drops those titles, will other bookstores stand? Not likely.
 
That would merit discussion for a natural monopoly. Amazon doesn't meet that requirement here though.

I don't want the law telling Amazon they have to host content, that's for sure. But I don't want Amazon telling me what is and is not okay for me to read. But the law isn't the solution to my concern.

Then what is?
 
Well generously speaking, the root of the word "apology" meant something closer to "explanation", neutral toward any implication of right or wrong.

Yeah well 16th century "bully" meant "sweetheart" and being apologetic means being remorseful in today's times. I didn't have to make this reply but I've been sitting on that bully tidbit for years.
 
Yeah well 16th century "bully" meant "sweetheart" and being apologetic means being remorseful in today's times. I didn't have to make this reply but I've been sitting on that bully tidbit for years.
Fair enough. I don't think any rape apologist calls themselves that though. It's mostly a word that soycucks like Maddox use as an instant-win button to beat people in arguments.
 
Is it a good idea to stupidly ban a bad idea?

Serious question. Do two bad ideas make a good idea?

It's always a mistake to think you can eradicate bad ideas by silencing people. Ideas might spread in some ways like viruses, but they are not viruses. Bad ideas are not destroyed through quarantine. People will discuss them privately even if they don't do it in public, and it's always better for bad ideas to be subject to as much public scrutiny as possible. Public debate is how we figure out the truth (separate from "the facts") , by seeing which ideas survive in the face of opposition and which have more evidence to back them.

And we should never assume it's obvious why an idea is a bad one. Why is holocaust denial a faulty idea? Because there's an overwhelming amount of historical info indicating the holocaust happened. That is not necessarily obvious to someone who knows nothing about the holocaust and is not allowed to ask questions about--or listen to other people ask questions or make provocative statements (which lead to more debate/discussion) about--the holocaust. Every moment there are people who don't know much about the holocaust maturing to the point they can be educated about it. If there's no public discussion there to demonstrate the most robust ideas, they may just as easily be miseducated about the subject. Or any subject.

What is happening now, with so much censorship (for lack of a better word), has nothing to do with stopping bad ideas. That's a lie the censors tell to justify their actions. The truth is they believe themselves to be the highest moral authorities, and they're angered and offended by certain ideas, and they believe they have a moral right (distinct from a legal one) to make them go away. They're completely wrong, and they're making the causes they oppose stronger by censoring discussion of them.

(Of course corporations are mostly concerned with money and are just trying to protect their brands from negative association. I know that. But there are often activist-types at some point in the process forcing the hand of corporations. They've figured out how to use the risk averse nature of business to partially silence their enemies. Everyone who uses social media is aware of this.)
 
1. He absolutely promoted raping intoxicated women because he did not see that as rape at all

2. These books were undoubtedly bullshit, like penthouse letters with a really weird political slant

3. He had some (arguably) racist things to say about the female populations of various countries

4. Amazon isn't obligated to carry any specific work on its website
Lol, ur a liberal.
 
I support a private company's decision to not sell trash while it also sells other forms of trash. Hypocrisy happens. At the end of the day, I don't like Roosh but I do like Amazon's services.
 
But I don't want Amazon telling me what is and is not okay for me to read.

I do believe them removing a book from their virtual shelves is less "You're not allowed to read this" and more "This violates our terms of service." Just because someone says "not in my house", it doesn't mean "nowhere ever."
 
Amazon ain't telling you what you can read, Amazon is telling you what you can purchase from their site.

Go buy it elsewhere. This is not a free speech issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom