The tech giant Amazon was forced to intervene after outrage erupted this week over a controversial children’s t-shirt that contained the words “Daddy’s Little Slut.”
“The product was being sold by third party retailer Onlybabycare, which sells other children’s apparel items via the retailer, such as Taco Bell slogan tees and a hat bearing the words: ‘Black guns matter,'” The Independent reported.
“The ‘Daddy’s little slut’ T-shirt had been on the website since June 2019 and was on sale for half its original price at $18 (£14). The product description read that the top was ‘suitable’ for various occasions, including ‘playing outside, birthday party, baby shower, baptism, wedding, baby photography, daily wear, family day.'”
1. Available for sale on @amazon: “Daddy’s Little Slut” t-shirt…for children
Posting here in hopes it’ll expedite removal from Amazon https://t.co/KXi2e6lwNu pic.twitter.com/uuUtQ3DRC5
— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) November 8, 2019
The since-removed product was reportedly listed as a “unisex” garment suitable for “little girls or boys,” though clearly the product page contained an image of a girl, not a boy.
A cursory glance through Onlybabycare’s Amazon store conducted Saturday afternoon revealed a slew of other children’s clothing and gear — many of the products centered on practically every theme imaginable, from burgers and ice cream to hippies, weightlifting, spiders, the U.K. and more.
The evidence suggest the manufacturer is willing to capitalize on practically everything, including the sexualization of children and normalization of child abuse.
Or at least that’s how the rest of the world has interpreted both its decision to sell a children’s t-shirt with the words “Daddy’s Little Slut” on it, and Amazon’s decision to allow it to sell this provocative shirt in the first place.
Look:
This is WRONG!!
There is no gray area here.
No artistic license.
No free speech.
No “That’s not what we meant.”
Also sold by OnlyBabyCare: a baby onesie that says “I just look illegal.”
Stop ?✋? sexualizing children + normalizing abuse! https://t.co/Pana4phjLQ
— Alicia Kozakiewicz (@itsaliciakozak) November 9, 2019
@JeffBezos WTF Bezos. Child abuse much?? Sold on Amazon OnlyBabyCare pic.twitter.com/0y10nJ7xTz
— Robin Knittle (@rlrk1956) November 9, 2019
Why are you promoting child sexual abuse? https://t.co/b7nozw2qiX
— Tombstone ? ?? (@Tombstone1954) November 8, 2019
Just shameful. I have spent 45 years of my life fighting child abuse and this ?come out! https://t.co/m4PRMB4oDO
— Clint Thompson (@TinStarMan) November 8, 2019
WHY is Amazon allowed to sell this trash???
I HATE amazon— Mason (@Mason38440347) November 8, 2019
i’ve been on the line for some time now and I am filing a complaint about this disgusting abhorrent TShirt the woman at Amazon I’m speaking to right now is writing up a formal complaint she’s submitting it to Amazon as we speak i’m on hold at this moment.
— Jeannie Hartley (@Jeannie_Hartley) November 8, 2019
Whoa. I didn’t think this was real, but went to my Amazon app and sure enough, there it is. There’s a lot of nauseating adult stuff, and right in the middle is this toddler tee shirt. Unbelievable.
— Lisa (@cornell4717) November 8, 2019
The backlash clearly worked, as Amazon responded by removing the product. However, Onlybabycare’s Amazon store page still remains active.
Two questions remain. Why did Amazon allow the manufacturer to retail this shirt? And why did the manufacturer produce it in the first place? Or did it even …
Some social media users noted that products are often placed on Amazon automatically via software bots.
“Most things of that nature get listed on Amazon through automatic means. Amazon doesn’t know the shirt is objectionable until something’s done that gets actual eyes to look at the listing rather than just programming,” one pointed out.
That makes sense. And there are in fact a slew of tools available on the market that are designed specifically to automate the process of product insertion.
Most things of that nature get listed on Amazon through automatic means. Amazon doesn’t know the shirt is objectionable until something’s done that gets actual eyes to look at the listing rather than just programming.
— Sean Lee (@Slvrbolt) November 8, 2019
But this still doesn’t explain Onlybabycare’s decision to sell the product, though it may explain how the product wound up being put on sale.
Another social media user pointed out that, as bizarre as it may sound, some money-hungry companies use software tools to automatically generate their products.
“They take a billion phrases and create a billion listings across all product types (shirts, mugs, etc),” the Twitter user writer. “And that right there is a great example of why such a ‘spray and pray’ approach is really stupid.”
It’s not clear whether this claim is legitimate. And even if it were, it’d still be one lousy excuse, or so the user’s critics opined.
Look:
FWIW, these are programmatically generated. They take a billion phrases and create a billion listings across all product types (shirts, mugs, etc).
And that right there is a great example of why such a “spray and pray” approach is really stupid.
— Anthony Citrano (@acitrano) November 8, 2019
IOW this is not a real product on a real model. It’s a computer generated image inserted into an automated listing based on a bazillion phrases spit out by some SEO Listing BotMonster.
— Anthony Citrano (@acitrano) November 8, 2019
If that’s how it works, there needs to be a preventative algorithm that restricts certain images or phrases from combining w/ specific products or product types, b/c that message amplified by a powerhouse like Amazon gives it unacceptable, destructive range & “normalcy.”
?— Melissa Santucci (@melissasantucci) November 8, 2019
They can make algorithms to suppress “unsupported speech” on social media, yet Amazon can’t filter out sexually explicit content associated with minors? Seems legit. @Amazon @JeffBezos
— Ijuakos ❌qwzts (@IjuakosXqwzts) November 8, 2019
Either way, at least the product is gone now. Of course, some would argue that it should have never appeared on Amazon in the first place …
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.
- Lawmakers from both parties look to Mayorkas to explain Russian cyberattacks on US water systems - April 24, 2024
- INSIDER: Biden reportedly mulling ‘desperate’ exec order that could impact more than 1 million criminal aliens - April 24, 2024
- House Sgt. at Arms threatens GOP Rep to delete video of Dems waving Ukraine flags or else - April 24, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
