Regardless of how optimistic GoodReads claim that being incorporated into Amazon will help grow the site and invest more in the things that the members care about, I look at this sale with much dismay. Let’s be honest here, the scope of Amazon and GoodReads are completely different. Amazon cares only about sales. GoodReads is a user-generated platform functioning as a book recommendation engine. GoodReads is social media for book lovers so the reviews posted there could be more honest and commendable. Whereas Amazon controls and censors what books you can purchase and their feedback. GoodReads CEO Otis Chandler said the site will remain “an independently controlled subsidiary of Amazon” and noted it will keep “full control of editorial content and the recommendations.” Okay, but they skirt the subject regarding intellectual property. When you submit a review to the Amazon site, it becomes Amazon’s property–their corporate asset. I won’t be surprised if the reviews would be cross-posted on Amazon. Based on Amazon terms, reviews will be censored, altered, edited, or removed without notice, just like what happened to my review of a GLBT fiction 9 years ago. As for the Kindle users, they are most likely be able to integrate that device with their Goodreads accounts. To make a long story short, why should a greedy corporation care about what you read? This is devastating news for readers and authors because Amazon, which has already acquired Shelfari in 2008, is forming a hegemony that boxes readers into a corner. With bookstores closing, Internet sites have become critical places for informing readers about books they might be interested in. This deal further consolidates Amazon’s power to determine which authors get exposure for their work. I am sick to the stomach that Amazon claims itself to be the best place to buy books–and thus making it the perfect place to discuss them. That could be true if you’re into the popular crap and bestsellers.