Removing titles from the Logos platform

EastTN said:

DMB said:

- Our church doesn't like it: Yep

I would argue that "Please don't offer books that promote the occult" has more in common with "Please don't offer books that glorify violence" than "Please don't offer books that our church doesn't like." Occult titles may not bother you personally, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that they're "off-brand" for a retailer catering to a Christian market.

Now, EastTN, let's not redefine english ... better to have a standard, 'we don't like it'. That's how businesses and churches operate.

And no, I'm not occulty ... but our town is. And violence isn't remotely connected. Serious?

DMB really?

I assumed people understood that I was saying I do not know any Christians who would touch such a book because it was an occult book.

Your definition of undesireable as violent, erotic or graphic is very surprising, I'm sorry to say.

Roger Pitot said:

DMB really?

Yes, Roger, really. Your church believes different from mine. On witch training, ours would probably laugh, in the same way Babylonian and greek idols were rock, and meat cooked over rock-piles would probably be pretty tasty. Jeremiah and Paul vs John. Better things to worry about.

But the listed categories are from this thread and Faithlife (initial post).

Now, the problem that seems to elude, is Christians work at Faithlife and are being purposely embarrassed (vs use the supplied email address), which isn't Christian, and isn't fair, absent clear standards. 

EastTN said:

Your "[t]hat's how business and churches operate" is either a breathtakingly sweeping ad hominem attack, or a just a snarky rhetorical flourish. Either way, it isn't a serious argument.

Neither breath-taking nor snarky. I read it in a Logos book just last week ... churches operate by member agreement ... if you disagree you can be quiet, or leave.  And most Christians I know, basically church-shop on that basis.

As to occult vs violence, I was simply trying to recognize the Faithlife categories ... occult isn't one.

DMB said:

I read it in a Logos book just last week ... churches operate by member agreement ... if you disagree you can be quiet, or leave.  And most Christians I know, basically church-shop on that basis.

I hear what you're saying, but that's a pretty slender reed to lean on when you're attributing that behavior to "businesses and churches" across the board.

DMB said:

...I was simply trying to recognize the Faithlife categories ... occult isn't one.

I get that. But it seems fair to argue that promoting the occult should be one of the Faithlife categories, and that the fact it isn't seems like a pretty obvious oversight for a Bible software company.

And yes, in saying that I recognize that it's important to include books that study the occult, study the impact of the occult on our society, address how to reach out to those who engage in occult practices, and examine how occult and related new age beliefs have filtered into and affected our churches. We also need books that study the growth of pornography in our society, the business of pornography, its impact on individuals and families, how to reach out to those who're caught up in pornography, and how pornography has affected our congregations. But just like none of that means Faithlife should carry sexually explicit materials (even though some researchers may need to examine them in the course of their research), I don't believe that any of it justifies Faithlife carrying materials that actively promote occult practices.

EastTN said:

I hear what you're saying, but that's a pretty slender reed to lean on ....

Totally unrelated to the present discussion, but your metaphor brought back a nice study I think last week from Isa 36:6 and Eze 29:6-7 ... especially the 'bruised cane' and translation, then laying open the hand ... splinter?  I assume a common occurance.

A simple search for "Lover", "Harlequin", "witch", "magic", "Cannabis" etc... shows MANY objectionable titles remain. "Harlequin" returns dozens of titles. Such content is not "resources" and there are not so "few" that you need people to report them.

I've seen a lot of comments in the forum but no answers from Logos directly beyond the form letter boilerplate I received when I contacted customer service about wanting to expand their offering and not having vetted things properly. Why are these books still available and when will this be dealt with? What's preventing you from scrubbing these titles and putting in place a system that makes sure they don't get loaded again in future?

Here you are like clockwork. However, I wasn't asking you.

MJ. Smith said:

I find Logos removing a title other than erotica or violence due to complaints repulsive and reason to qualify my recommendation of Logos. I see it as evidence of the denominational bias of the company impacting my ability to use the tool they provide as "applicable to all denominations".

I disagree. I also suspect (hope) that if we sat down and discussed this in a coffee shop, your position would be somewhat more nuanced than it's coming across in your posts.

I can think of multiple reasons someone might suggest that Logos stop offering a resource:

• Egregious plagiarism
• Copyright violations
• Libelous content
• Medical disinformation

I also wonder which denominations you believe would be ill-served if Logos decides not to offer books that promote occult practices such as wicca or modern paganism. If that's the kind of denominational neutrality that appeals to you, all I can say is that I'm looking for something very different. I could not in good conscience recommend to a brother or sister a Bible software package for them to use in Bible study if it places paganism on an equal footing with Christianity.

MJ. Smith said:

Hopefully, people like myself who believe they can screen titles themself more appropriately than strangers (or those known only through the forums). And those, who like myself, believe titles must be available/visible to learn/teach how to screen them.

But why must every title be available in a Bible software package? That's ultimately where your argument leads, and it makes no sense to me.  Would you seriously argue that Hasenat Quran Research Version 6.0, for instance, is somehow engaging in "censorship" if they choose not to include the NASB 1995 New Testament, or the Westminster Confession of Faith? Or perhaps Wicca Made Easy: Awaken the Divine Magic within You? Or that the Bar Ilan Responsa Project is somehow failing in its mission if it doesn't include the Apostolic Fathers?

I don't know - maybe you would. But I see value in software platforms, libraries and retailers that have a specific focus. And if you include everything, then you're focused on nothing. I suspect you recognize that, because I haven't heard any arguments for the need for Logos to include works on knitting, small appliance repair, or the works of Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke.

MJ. Smith said:

I am only discussing those cases of making the decision for OTHERS i.e. making a text unavailable. 

No one is arguing for making a text "unavailable" - Amazon will still be there, as will libraries, publishers and other booksellers. All we're discussing here is whether certain books should be in Logos. Suggesting that I'm arguing that you should not be permitted to buy or read any book you want is a red herring argument that's beneath you.

EastTN said:

And yes, in saying that I recognize that it's important to include books that study the occult, study the impact of the occult on our society, address how to reach out to those who engage in occult practices, and examine how occult and related new age beliefs have filtered into and affected our churches. We also need books that study the growth of pornography in our society, the business of pornography, its impact on individuals and families, how to reach out to those who're caught up in pornography, and how pornography has affected our congregations. But just like none of that means Faithlife should carry sexually explicit materials (even though some researchers may need to examine them in the course of their research), I don't believe that any of it justifies Faithlife carrying materials that actively promote occult practices.

That's not a valid comparison. I have linked a multitude of Christian scholarly books that quote directly from the occultic material that is in question here in an earlier post. Yet you will have to show me a Christian book, scholarly or not, that quotes from a porn magazine.

Thos are two different categories.

MJ. Smith said:

...and should follow their own guidelines as given. They are free to change their guidelines but they should do so from a broad view of their market. As long as they present eBooks as a general feed with little screening (violence, graphic, erotic), that is what it should be. A small percentage of vocal users should not affect the equation.

M.J., I agree with that. I'm arguing for a change in the guidelines, which I believe would be consistent with the brand they've built up over the years, their stated mission that "We exist to empower believers everywhere to go deeper in the Bible through a fusion of Bible study resources and powerful technology" and (I strongly suspect) the preferences of most of their customers.

Perhaps the real problem is that we cannot know, based purely on the forums, who the "small percentage of vocal users" actually is. I find it difficult to believe that most Logos users would support being as inclusive as you suggest, and so I suspect that those who would want Logos to include books promoting the occult are likely in the minority - but I don't actually know that. All I can do is make the best arguments I can for what I, as one customer, would prefer to see them do and let the chips fall where they may.

Publishers don't pick and choose what they send they send their whole catalog and sometimes stuff gets through. They have asked us to help them police it so do that.

Why is that our job, rather than their job? They're a multi-million dollar company. 

Kiyah said:

"You can send questionable titles to titlereview@logos.com to be reviewed by someone at Logos."

Perhaps that would be more effective, and more appropriate, than posting pictures of erotic titles in the forums showing not just Logos staff but all forum users exactly how to find them. If you have already emailed them then my apologies. But maybe posting the pictures in here isn't the best way to handle this.

I have never once accidentally come across a single erotic title (I've been a user since 2015). I would not have known any of these titles were in the store or seen the cover art if you had not posted them here. Please be mindful of other users as you are reporting titles, preferably using the email above. And maybe stop actively searching for porn/erotica in the store. Logos has already said that they don't intend to carry porn and erotica and titles that promote violence, and that they are working to refine their filters to address this issue. They said that in this very thread. Just report the titles to the email and don't tell the rest of us about them.

MJ. Smith said:

Years ago, I had a lesson in how culture bound what is considered pornographic is. In second year Sanskrit, reading a religious text there was a passage that was so explicitly sexual that none of the students, myself included, would translate it. The professor took pity on us and translated the short passage. By our 4th or 5th year, we could laugh at our embarrassment as we understood we were imposing meaning on the text that was not intended.

That's a good point. I've also read that there's a great deal of variation in what different cultures consider "swear words." In modern English they tend to refer to bodily functions. My understanding is that if you want to swear in Quebecois you'll most likely be making religious references ("blaspheming"). I read somewhere that the attitude in Quebec is closer to the way 1st century Greeks thought about things than the way we do. 

Matt Bennett said:

• You can send questionable titles to titlereview@logos.com to be reviewed by someone at Logos.

Yeah, but that won't appear on the Forums, so that if Portnoy's Complaint falls off the turnip truck onto a product page, no one can jump into a thread and declare: "... this material is vital for understanding the odd proclivities of 60s-era sex fiends."

Matt Bennett said:

However, we’re currently working to tighten these controls so the Logos platform is always a safe place for going deeper in the Bible.

The process has been been automated and they are working on improving it.  However, mistakes are bound to be made and some titles will accidentally slip through.  When that happens, users have the option to report this to Logos.  

I would also suspect that Logos will be able to learn from these mistakes and fine tune their selection process.  

Larry Farlow said:

Again, why are we being asked to do their jobs for them?

You don't have to if you don't want to. They're just telling how to handle it if you do find a title objectionable enough to want it removed.

You don't have to spend your time searching the store for titles to report or posting repeatedly in the forums. You certainly don't have to spend time capturing and posting screenshots of cover art.

Put another way, they don't have a clear urgency to take care of this, so stop being so hard on them and leave them alone. 

John Klink Jr said:

In the email, it was explained:

[quote]

I appreciate how this is a poor reflection on what we are aiming to do here at Logos and want to reiterate that we are taking the matter seriously.  I have gone through and pulled these resources from the platform.  So, to answer your questions directly, the answer to both is no.  These resources were never intended to be put on the platform as they are not acceptable and no, they will not be remaining on the site. 

 

I will state it is a very manual process to reverse these and while I’ve aimed to get them all there may be some that are missed.  I will keep searching for anything with the same search term and keep addressing until they are all removed.

Perhaps now that you've gotten [another] direct response in addition to the three responses from Logos employees on this thread that they don't find these titles acceptable and that they are working to address the issue, perhaps both you and others will, as many of us on this thread have suggested, extend them some grace as they seek to address the issue, and refrain from throwing a fit in the forums whenever you find an objectionable title. Can you take their word that they take the matter seriously, can you stop assuming negative intent or apathy on their part? Can you take their word that it's a manual process to remove titles and some may slip through or get missed? Can you give them the benefit of the doubt that you would want to be given?

John Klink Jr said:

I agree it's kind of silly that we're being asked to report titles to them.

Consider it similar to the "Report Typo" feature in Logos, or the ability to report Bugs in the forums. No, it is not my job to identify bugs or spot typos, and I certainly don't want to spend significant amounts of time doing that. But doing so does help them make the software better, and I don't report bugs or typos when I don't feel like it or don't have the time to do so, because it's not my job. They're not requiring me to report those things, but they have given an avenue to do so if I so desire. If you see a title you don't think should be on the platform according to their stated policy (hopefully not just according to your own personal preferences) report it if you want to, don't report it if you don't want to. Nobody's forcing you.