I have a similar story to this tale of Amazon hypocrisy.
Some twenty years ago I had an Amazon affiliate account for the Movie House. That consisted solely of links to DVDs of R-rated movies. Amazon cancelled my account because my site was objectionable. In fact, my site was less objectionable than the DVDs Amazon was selling. For example, Amazon sells Pretty Baby, which includes a naked 12-year-old girl (Brooke Shields) in sexual situations, but I have not used those scenes, presenting only the pics of Susan Sarandon. But I guess that’s not the main point, which is that I ran an R-rated site that showed scenes from the R-rated films they were selling, so it’s difficult to see why they objected.
That’s not the end of the story.
I shrugged my shoulders and moved on, because there is no sense in one insignificant site trying to change the policy of a behemoth. But they were not satisfied. They made me take down all the links to their site – even after they declared they would not pay the commissions. That was just plain weird, because at that point the links did me no good, while giving them additional sales and traffic with no affiliate commission! (At one point, an Amazon whistleblower who happened to be my reader pointed out to me that I was responsible for 100% of the sales of a film called Billy Bathgate!) At that point, I was basically just making a small donation to the next Bezos yacht, but they just couldn’t bear the thought of accepting money from a dirtbag like me!
That’s right, I’m too big a dirtbag for the company that (I presume) is the world’s largest dildo seller. (Sample)
Or at least I WAS too big a dirtbag. As I mentioned, that all happened in the distant past.
This is how all big media companies in the US work. They want all the revenue from porn, but don’t want the little guys to get into it because they know the little guys can make an awful lot from it, grow from it and provide more competition.
To see how ridiculous they are, about 20 years ago there were a lot of articles saying how the cable companies made no money from the pay-per-view porn they were selling so conservatives shouldn’t attack them. I knew this made absolutely no sense because if it were true then that would mean they were providing all that valuable cable bandwidth to porn producers for free so porn companies could make even more money. That they were some kind of charity for the porn industry.
Of course they only lie in mainstream media articles where lies are not illegal. They cannot lie in quarterly financial reports. A couple years after I read the silly articles, I was listening to the CEO of Time Warner in a quarterly call talking about their issues with the cable division. He was saying how they were still losing high margin profits in their adult video-on-demand as the internet was continually providing tougher competition in that area. He projected that that would continue to be a problem for years to come. The quarterly calls is the only place where these companies come even close to the truth, but even there they try to hide as much as they legally can get away with.
Basically when it comes to anything related to porn, they are hypocritical and full of shit. And to them, any sexy girl is related to porn because the entire porn industry is built upon them. That’s why some girl on youtube can’t post sexy content without getting demonetized while youtube and other big companies can put fully naked women in their videos.
Amazon does have a nice selection of dildos ~ carry on …