Whilst I haven't had books or shelves removed. I can't see how it has helped anyone, and it seems to have done more harm than good. The fact that GR's just went in and blithely started removing books and shelves was like a slap in the face for readers/reviewers. GR's (to me at least) has lost a lot of the "flavour" that made GR's so unique to a reader.

I agree, no matter how one views this entire situation it's hard to disagree that the flavor of Goodreads will definitely change.

I personally wasn't but what they did, I feel, censored the whole community. Not to mention hiding comments and reviews they didn't like. I mean, didn't that set off any alarm bells with people who profess to love books so much?

I was one of the first 23 who had whole bookshelves deleted without warning. I never badmouthed anyone, spread or continued rumors, or said anything about anyone as a person. I focused on behavior, which was what my shelf was called. I recently was told I could reinstall the shelf since it wasn't actually against Goodreads policy.

As an adjunct to this, I have been condemned by a group of authors who didn't like one specific review I wrote which while not hurting or putting down anyone wasn't about the book itself. The review instead referenced an article the author wrote telling authors it was their duty to challenge any bad reviews. I'm now on their target list (my name is still there and I believe this is why I was one of those people who was affected at the beginning).

This group encourages their followers to harass reviewers who they don't agree with. I have seen where they have voted an author down because of the person's reviews. (One of these books voted down hasn't even been finished yet let alone published.) As a writer, I don't dare publish under my own name for fear of being unfairly rated and reviewed which would affect my readership.

All that said, I don't think it was censorship. I think how they did it was unethical, but they're a corporation trying to make money. They never said I had no right to my words or opinion, just that they didn't want it on their website. I delete hateful and mean posts as a moderator sometimes. I don't see that as censorship; I see it as keeping the forum safe and welcoming for all member. I think it's the same thing. I just think they had a knee jerk and arbitrary reaction to a small group who complained.

I understand the idea of moderating and that there are malicious people out there.

The main issue I have with the take over of goodreads is not sensible moderation and ousting of malicious people.

The issue is the incentive and climate that has been created by the buyout.

Goodreads now has incentive to censor and do other things that are not necessarily best for its users and to their ability to speak freely, due to being owned by Amazon.

Their best counter argument is that it is their site, they can do what they want. While this is valid it is important to note one thing. Where else can people's posts get a wider book audience than goodreads?

Short answer: Nowhere.

So while you may be able to post or state your opinion somewhere else, there is a really good chance that not nearly as many people will hear it and your opinion/argument will not be heard.

On the macro level it looks like this. Goodreads can now control and therefore push the types of conversations that come up on its site, while at the same time, push out other things that may not behoove Amazon's agenda. Because of the scale of Goodreads, this could have the potential to shift book culture artificially. This could spawn book types/genres that are artificial due to what customers have been driven to want, and also squander other genres that may have been more important to society at large for the times.

And that sort of ruins the point to books. They do make money, but they are really an art and a an important part to human/society development. To create a system that makes it more of a business poisons its roots to where books and book culture will not be as strong as it could be and therefore hurt human development/society over the long term.


I will say it seems Amazon has become less malicious with its censorship. But again, Amazon has incentive to push its own agenda, which is not necessarily good for many of its users, books, or book culture. And that's just not a good situation to be in.

I completely agree with what you're saying, it's just not censorship in the legal meaning. I also at this point don't think Goodreads is doing everything that you're saying they can do. They may, but my belief is that they're not doing that yet. Notice I say yet.

Then again, I'm an insufferable pollyanna.

I hope they are not doing it either. I have no idea if they are.

I just don't like that:

1. They can
2. They have incentive to do it.
3. It helps a few but hurts the whole
4. No one can really stop them if they do it.

It's for situations like this that bills such as The Sherman Anti-Trust Act were drafted.

Looks like quite old group. Anyhow, I know people deleted few times from GR without giving any reason. Sounds stranger for such a popular social group. Any one has explanation....

Amazon bought GoodReads in 2013, and it hasn't been the same place since. And it's not a change for the better.

Thanks SusannaG. Kindle boards is a nice place for authors and readers but something happened there too. These were full of life but not much activity anymore for reason.