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.
Click to expand...

And the most important bit:

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

Infowars and Information Liberation (for what that's worth) are reporting it too:

https://www.infowars.com/fahrenheit-2018-amazon-begins-banning-controversial-books/
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59043
 
Click to expand...
Vorhtbame said:
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."
Click to expand...
That's a really good way to put it.

It's only a free speech issue if it does mean "nowhere ever", and in this situation it doesn't meet that standard.
 
wellthathappened said:
Okay? Can you purchase it on other platforms other than Amazon? Is the state preventing you from buying it? Is not a free speech issue. Your moral outrage really isn't a factor.
Click to expand...
Stop trying to jam everything in boxes. I said this is a slippery slope, not a free speech issue. Amazon banning a book they have had on their shelves for years is bad, and brushing it off is stupid and near sighted. At least the free speech yellers are making noise about it, can you imagine what would happen if Amazon got no push back at all for this?

Edit:removed needless antagonism
 
You are not really that revolutionary. No one will swarm the streets or really care that this book was removed from Amazon. Buy it elsewhere.
 
Ineedahero said:
Stop trying to jam everything in boxes. I said this is a slippery slope, not a free speech issue. Amazon banning a book they have had on their shelves for years is bad, and brushing it off is stupid and near sighted. At least the free speech yellers are making noise about it, can you imagine what would happen if Amazon got no push back at all for this?

Edit:removed needless antagonism
Click to expand...
It is a good thing to stand up to big corporations. Just because it's not "the government" doesn't mean they don't have power that needs to be checked. I'm with you on that.

The big thing is that we can't give the government power to curb big companies too easily because then that government becomes the problem. Think of government and corporations as being in the same business - but government only differs in having monopoly over armed force. You don't want either to have too much power, therefore you don't want to give one too much power just to curb the other today.

So long as companies are forced to compete, we have the ability to hurt them, we just have to be diligent about doing so. Incidentally, that's the best argument for capitalism I can think of - big companies will always try to screw you, the important thing is to ensure a system where they have something to be afraid of too. Communism/socialism is basically a system where one company gets a monopoly over everything, hence everyone else loses their ability to challenge.
 
ooh maybe if people hadn't spent so many years only buying books on amazon to the point that local bookstores and even big chain borders went out of business this wouldn't be so big a deal, would it?

i don't know, it reminds me of how walmart won't allow music with obscenities, where obviously it's their choice as a company (and once they got sued for accidentally allowing an album with an obscenity-containing song through), but in large parts of the country walmart was your only music choice until online downloads became a thing, and in places with shitty internet are still the only music choice

anti-trust regulation?

edit: companies inserting morality into what they do or do not sell isn't a new thing, don't act like it is.
 
Last edited:
I don't really have any issues with this at all. I don't care about the sociological implications, and I think they're vastly exaggerated; the market has no ethics. If Amazon goes full censorship then it won't bring about the end of civilization; it'll bring about the end of Amazon, and the rise of a new retailer willing to give the public what they actually want. Opinions on whether this is 'right' or 'wrong' are ultimately meaningless; only the market matters.

I also kind of take issue to the idea that this is Amazon 'telling people what to read'. So what? The only difference between them and every other online influence group is scale. You can bet that if Roosh V or Stormfront or any other of these radical publications had the same level of market influence as Amazon, they'd be just as ready to try and passively suppress contrarian viewpoints or censor content they didn't agree with. The only way not to be told what to consume is to consume nothing at all.
 
this is also why local businesses are good. does jeff bezos really care about roosh v? no, he's a soulless automaton. but he knows this is a good marketing technique, and the number of people who approve will outnumber the people who don't. big chains produce the blandest, most focus-tested results you can get. where i'm from we have a commie bookstore. you don't like their book selection? well you can walk about a mile and a half and go to a different bookstore! it's true for the kinda stuff walmart sells and it's true for restaurants (most american chains serve basically the same stuff), and for every other business. and why there's value in specialty stores: i can get slices of ham at our local supermarket, but i have to walk down the street to tony's butcher shop if i want a whole pig. places like amazon go for quantity over quality.
 
I'd argue this is much less damaging to free speech than Youtube/social media censorship, since anyone can sell a book anywhere, while Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are the public square of the current year and can't easily be replaced. The vast majority of Roosh V's audience (incels) isn't discovering his content on Amazon after all.
 
Ruin said:
Roosh is a giant sped but I'm against stuff like this because Amazon's purpose is to sell shit not become another cultish pseudo religious entity telling society what is and isn't moral.
Click to expand...

Society is already pretty clear on the idea that outright raping women isn't moral.
 
robobobo said:
Eh. The guy's probably a tard and definitely a cow, so I'm not gonna shed any tears over this. But it does strike me as weird that a place that sells Mein Kampf no problemo is balking about selling some dude's probably-fake accounts of getting pussy.
Click to expand...
The major difference here is Hitler isn't profiting from book sales.
 
RadicalCentrist said:
A publicly traded-company that has a 41% share of all print books sold, and a 67% share of online books sold and is worth a trillion dollars is somehow now a private company. You learn something new every day.
Click to expand...
I don't think publicly traded means what you think it means. If you aren't a shareholder, they don't have to care about you. Maybe you're thinking of public as in public library, as in owned by the government (and thus accountable to taxpayers), in which case, are you some kinda commie?
 
I'm amazed people consider amazon banning a disgusting book full of fake news to be the end of free speech. Like, amazon doesn't culturally control western civilisation, just people too lazy to go outside.
 
Ruin said:
Roosh is a giant sped but I'm against stuff like this because Amazon's purpose is to sell shit not become another cultish pseudo religious entity telling society what is and isn't moral.
Click to expand...
Do you also believe Amazon was wrong to ban 'The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure'? Amazon is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to sell books that are largely about justifying rape. If he wants to sell that book so badly he can just use his own website. No store is obligated to stock everything.
 
Rio said:
Do you also believe Amazon was wrong to ban 'The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure'? Amazon is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to sell books that are largely about justifying rape. If he wants to sell that book so badly he can just use his own website. No store is obligated to stock everything.
Click to expand...

No, but at the same time you could leave that up and probably pick up a few creeps pretty easily just based on people buying it. It's not like they wouldn't just pass the names of the purchasers over to the FBI or local authorities if somebody asked real nice.
 
Rio said:
Do you also believe Amazon was wrong to ban 'The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure'? Amazon is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to sell books that are largely about justifying rape. If he wants to sell that book so badly he can just use his own website. No store is obligated to stock everything.
Click to expand...
Amazon sold plenty of books justifying rape, and when it became convenient to do so, banned them for publicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom