Connect with us

Business

Amazon Will No Longer Sell Books Equating LGBTQ+ Identities With Mental Illnesses

Published

on

  • Amazon said Thursday that it will no longer sell books framing LGBTQ+ identities as mental illnesses. 
  • The statement came in response to a line of questioning from four Republican senators who asked the company why it removed the 2018 book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” last month. 
  • The book’s author argued that “When Harry Became Sally” never equates being transgender with having a mental illness, but LGBTQ+ activists have long criticized its text as “dangerous” to trans individuals.

Amazon Removes Anti-LGBTQ+ Book, Prompting Inquiry

Amazon will no longer sell books presenting LGBTQ+ identities as mental illnesses, according to a statement from the company’s Vice President of Public Policy, Brian Huseman.

Last month, Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fl.), Mike Lee (Ut.), Mike Braun (In.), and Josh Hawley (Mo.) all wrote to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos requesting to know why the 2018 book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” no longer appeared on the platform. 

In a response Thursday, Huseman said, “we reserve the right not to sell certain content.”

“As to your specific question about ‘When Harry Became Sally,’ we have chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” he added. 

As part of their letter, the four GOP senators had asked Amazon, “Is this action part of a broader campaign against conservative material and voices on Amazon’s platforms?”

In his response, Huseman said, “No. We offer customers across the political spectrum a wide variety of content that includes disparate opinions.”

The four also posed a similar question related to Amazon Web Services (AWS), which hosts a variety of religious and political websites. Responding to whether or not AWS would deny service to “content that falls outside the realm of acceptable woke groupthink,” Huseman rejected the idea.

“AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we respect our customers’ right to determine for themselves what content they will allow,” he said, while also noting that AWS is a separate entity from Amazon’s retail side. 

The lawmakers’ question about AWS was likely connected to its deplatforming of Parler, an app popular with conservatives, following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. AWS has maintained that it cut ties with Parler because moderators refused to crack down on violent and racist hate speech on the platform. 

“When Harry Became Sally” Writer Pushes Back

“When Harry Became Sally” was written by conservative scholar Ryan T. Anderson, and according to the book’s description, it provides “thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment,” as well as “a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity, and a sober assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.”

However, the description also states, “Everyone has something at stake in the controversies over transgender ideology, when misguided “antidiscrimination” policies allow biological men into women’s restrooms and penalize Americans who hold to the truth about human nature.”

With that description and other passages in mind, LGBTQ+ activists have derided the book as “dangerous and harmful to trans kids.”

“There’s an antiquated and shameful history of equating LGBTQ identity to mental illness,” a GLAAD spokesperson told Entertainment Weekly, “and Amazon’s decision to stop selling books that falsely equate the two is a positive step in ending the misinformation campaign against LGBTQ people, especially trans youth, meant only to cause harm.”

Meanwhile, Anderson and his publisher criticized the removal of the book in their own response to Amazon.

“Everyone agrees that gender dysphoria is a serious condition that causes great suffering,” Anderson and his publisher said. “There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to treat patients who experience gender dysphoria.”

The two then accused Amazon of “using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and… deceiving its own customers in the process.”

On Twitter, Anderson wrote, “Please quote the passage where I ‘call them mentally ill.’ You can’t quote that passage because it doesn’t exist.”

Many trans activists have noted that in his book, Anderson touts Dr. Paul McHugh, who is notoriously anti-trans. In fact, Anderson has even said, “In this book, I argue that Dr. McHugh got it right.”

Among other notable controversial decisions and statements, McHugh has described post-op trans women ascaricatures of women.” He has also said, “The transgendered suffer a disorder of ‘assumption.’” Outside of sexual identity, he has called homosexuality an “erroneous desire.” 

“Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men,” McHugh has said. “All… become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.”

In 2018, Anderson cited that passage as support for his own beliefs. 

“Sadly, just as “sex reassignment” fails to reassign sex biologically, it also fails to bring wholeness socially and psychologically,” Anderson said the same year.

A simple Twitter search of Anderson’s account also yields a 2018 tweet where he says, “Gender dysphoria is a serious mental health issue.”

“By contrast, transgenderism is a belief system that increasingly looks like a cultish religion… being forced on the public by the state,” he added.

See what others are saying: (Entertainment Weekly) (The Hill) (Wall Street Journal)

Business

TikTok to Require Labels on Manipulated Media, Ban Deepfakes of Children

Published

on

The social media platform says it wants to embrace the creativity AI can offer while being cautious of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it.


TikTok is rolling out a slew of limitations regarding synthetic deepfake videos, including a ban on deepfake content of children.

In an update on Tuesday, the social media platform said it wants welcome “the creativity that new artificial intelligence and other digital technologies may unlock” while also being careful of the “societal and individual risks” that come with it. To mitigate those risks, TikTok will require users to label manipulated media depicting “realistic scenes.” Users can do so in stickers, captions, or other means that make it clear the video is “synthetic,” “fake,” “not real,” or “altered.”

On top of that, there are new restrictions about who can be the subject of these manipulated videos. TikTok will not allow deepfake media that shows the likeness of a “young person” or any private person, including adults. It is also barring deepfakes that depict adult public figures giving political or commercial endorsements, as well as deepfakes that violate one of the platform’s other rules.

“While we provide more latitude for public figures, we do not want them to be the subject of abuse, or for people to be misled about political or financial issues,” the company’s updated guidelines say. 

As TikTok’s policies previously stated, synthetic media that has been edited to mislead audiences about real-world events is also not allowed on the platform. 

As far as what kind of deepfake media is allowed on TikTok, the company said videos showing adult public figures in “certain contexts, including artistic and educational content,” get the green light. This can include a video of a celebrity doing a TikTok dance, or a historical figure being depicted in a history lesson. 

The rules will be enforced starting April 21. Between now and then, TikTok says it will be training its moderators to better implement the guidelines.

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (The Associated Press) (TechCrunch)

Continue Reading

Business

Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades

Published

on

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 


Yeezy Surplus 

Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years. 

Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.

According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes. 

On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.

“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press. 

However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.

The Numbers 

Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million. 

If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.

Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.

As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval. 

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 

“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk Bashes Disabled Ex-Twitter Employee, Gets Blowback

Published

on

After Musk claimed the former employee “did no actual work,” the staffer calmly directed passive-aggressive insults right back at the billionaire.


Excuse Me, Do I Still Work Here?

Elon Musk brawled online with a former Twitter employee who didn’t know whether he was fired Tuesday, accusing the staffer of exploiting his disability.

Haraldur “Halli” Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, joined Twitter in 2021 after it acquired the creative agency he founded: Ueno.

He said on Twitter that he was unable to confirm whether he was still a Twitter employee nine days after being locked out of his work computer, despite reaching out to the head of HR and Musk himself through email.

At the time, Twitter had laid off at least 200 workers, or some 10% of its remaining workforce.

In search of an answer, Thorleifsson tweeted at Musk, who responded with the question: “What work have you been doing?”

After being given permission by Musk to break confidentiality, Thorleifsson listed several of his accomplishments, including leading “design crits to help level up design across the company.”

“Level up from what design to what? Pics or it didn’t happen,” Musk replied.

We haven’t hired design roles in 4 months. What changes did you make to help with the youths?”

Thorleifsson reminded Musk that he couldn’t access any pictures because he was locked out of his work computer.

Musk stopped replying to the tweets, but hours later he returned to the platform to lob invective at his former employee.

Musk Vs. Halli

“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm,” Musk tweeted, apparently referring to Thorleifsson. “Can’t say I have a lot of respect for that.”

“But was he fired? No, you can’t be fired if you weren’t working in the first place,” he added.

In a later Twitter thread, Thorleifsson said he could type for one or two hours at a time before his hands cramped, but that in pre-Musk Twitter, that wasn’t a problem because he was a senior director.

He added that despite his crippling disability, he worked hard for years to build Ueno.

“We grew fast and made money,” he said. “I think that’s what you are referring to when you say independently wealthy? That I independently made my money, as opposed to say, inherited an emerald mine.”

Thorleifsson made several more passive-aggressive jabs at Musk.

“I joined at a time when the company was growing fast,” he wrote. “You kind of did the opposite. The company had a fair amount of issues, but then again, most bigger companies do. Or even small companies, like Twitter today.”

Thorleifsson said that immediately following his back-and-forth with Musk, Twitter’s head of HR confirmed that he had indeed been fired from the company.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (CNN) (Yahoo)

Continue Reading