BookLooks is a Moms for Liberty invention. I broke that story<\/a> in May 2022, and since then, the group has continued to deny that it is theirs. Too bad the proof is in the screen shots<\/a>. The \u201cdatabase\u201d of volunteer-generated book reviews aims to become a one stop shop for parents who either want to monitor their children\u2019s reading (because parenting is hard and exhausting and who has the time to read all of the books available in a library) or who would like to be part of a Hate Group\u2019s mission to ban every book that does not align with their right-wing christofascist beliefs<\/a>.<\/p>\n BookLooks is not the only site doing this, and neither is the Hate Group, but they are the biggest, being given legitimacy again and again and again and again through the media. Every week I find journalists using it to talk about books being challenged within their community without any context as to what the site truly is. Moms has distanced themselves enough that a cursory glance by reporters on a quick digital deadline suggests nothing, so the group gets to own the entire cycle of the news: challenge the book, have the book\u2019s review from their website be cited in the news, then get the book removed because it has reviews that agree with the initial challenge complaint.<\/p>\n Content warnings and ratings for BookLooks are sourced through folks with no interest in or professional background in education, literacy, librarianship, or child development. They are happier<\/a> seeing their child pick up and read Lolita<\/em>\u2013an actual book about grooming\u2013than The Kite Runner<\/em>.<\/p>\n But this isn\u2019t about BookLooks. As interesting as it is to see the media discover it more than a year after the fact its lineage was unearthed, and as annoying as it is to see school boards think it has real value<\/a>, it\u2019s not the first of its type and it won\u2019t be the last.<\/p>\n Before BookLooks, there was Common Sense Media.<\/p>\n In 2010, Barnes & Noble announced<\/a> it would be adding Common Sense Media (CSM) ratings to its website, which launched 100s of blog posts. This was the era of book blogs, and conversation about CSM raged. Authors weighed in on this as much as librarians and parents and book lovers and for good reason: CSM\u2019s entire rating system is built on pulling pieces of a book out of context, conveying a count of whatever those pieces were, and using that information to help parents determine whether or not to pick up a book. There were age ratings, too, ensuring that books with too many swear words were not going to land in the hands of eyes deemed too young. Those books were better for readers 14 and older or 16 and older.<\/p>\n In a blog post<\/a> bringing up the issue of CSM being integrated into Barnes and Noble, mega-bestselling YA author Sarah Dessen wrote the following:<\/p>\n I really, really appreciate all the comments you guys left on the Common Sense ratings that are now on the BN.com site, and I can see your points, both for and against. I totally understand the need for some guidelines for parents who might not have the time to read every book their teen reads but still want to know what the story contains in terms of offensive or mature material. But as I said, I do really worry that the ratings take so much out of context that the story itself is lost. (And I also LOVED the comment about how the graphic Common Sense uses is sort of similar to that which displays the terrorist threat level. It\u2019s true!) But as an author, I have to say I was kind of surprised by the stuff they chose in Along for The Ride as offensive. I didn\u2019t realize that \u201csucked\u201d is a bad word these days, and, actually, I can\u2019t remember a point in the book where Auden lost her virginity to Eli, and since I wrote it, I think I\u2019d, you know, recall that. So the accuracy concerns me as well.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dessen\u2019s posts led to many more, including one from bestselling author Meg Cabot. Cabot looked at the CSM review for Are You There God? It\u2019s Me, Margaret<\/em>, a tween classic. What did she find<\/a>?<\/p>\n Because Common Sense Media has attached a yellow caution light warning to their review of Are You There God? It\u2019s Me Margaret that lets parents know they need to \u201cwatch out for\u201d mentions of <\/a>\u201cPlayboy, kissing, menstruation, bras, and emerging sexuality\u201d in the book.<\/p>\n Weirdly, while on BN.com\u2019s main page for Margaret, it\u2019s suggested that the \u201cappropriate reading age\u201d for the book is 9-12, Common Sense Media rates it for kids age 11, but if parents \u201cClick to learn more,\u201d they\u2019ll find out that Margaret doesn\u2019t actually get a \u201cgreen light\u201d unless readers are above 14 years of age.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A tween classic deemed inappropriate for actual tweens.<\/p>\n The discussion of CSM\u2019s integration with B&N did not turn to the belief that such ratings would deter kids from reading the books that they want to read. Discussions did not suggest parents would not find this information useful in some capacity. Indeed, it is impossible to read everything your kid might want to read. Having an idea of whether or not something is appropriate for them is helpful. Moreover, First Amendment Rights extend to everyone, with few limitations, especially when it comes to speech.<\/p>\n But CSM took its system beyond what is already done by professionals in the book, education, library, and child development industries.<\/p>\n Publishers give books age ratings. This is not something done quickly or thoughtlessly. I can tell you first hand as an author, spending phone calls discussing what the difference between a book being leveled for 12 and up vs. 14 and up would mean (mine are all 12+). Professional review journals like School Library Journal, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Book List, and others include audience assessments, some by age and some by grade. The difference with CSM? Cherry picking passages, subjectively rating language on whether or not it is \u201cappropriate,\u201d and creating worries for adults where it was unnecessary.<\/p>\n Contextless information is just that: a way to wield power and through that power, ignite worry. That worry and anxiety\u2013things busy parents do not have time for\u2013is a perfect conduit for compliance. The Shiny Happy People<\/em> docuseries lays this parternalism all out so neatly<\/a>, and does so in such a way to showcase how looking at art or information or facts plucked from context is a tool of submission to christofascism.<\/p>\n Even if there is context rendered in those reviews, it\u2019s silly. It undermines the purpose of literature and ascribes morality to the behavior of every character, main or not. Whose morality? That remains the question.<\/p>\n As Liz Burns wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u00a0Read some book reviews of books you have read, and you\u2019ll see this is not objective or factual. Which is fine, because some people want this. For example, in writing about The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate<\/em>, drinking and parental obedience is highlighted: \u201cParents need to know that there is little in the way of bad language or mature situations in this Newbery Honor book, but Calpurnia\u2019s grandfather not only drinks regularly and tries to distill his own whiskey, he seems to have no concept that children \u2018as young as 11\u2019 should not be drinking.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Grandfather\u2019s interests and hobbies should never have been seen in the story unless they could be a moral lesson for Calpurnia. I suppose that reviewer, looking today at how parents are behaving at school board meetings, would not blink an eye at how their language, their actions, and their histrionics are impacting the kids sitting in those same rooms or hearing about those meetings later on. To them, the fact the underlying purpose is to shield those kids from what they deem as inappropriate is what matters. It\u2019s not the behaviors or the broader implications of such challenges.<\/p>\n Common Sense Media is not without value. This was true in 2010 and it is true now.\u00a0 That value does not align with my values or beliefs in how literature works, but it serves a purpose. The problem in 2010 came from how Barnes & Noble gave it legitimacy by integrating those reviews on their website. That contextless information about a book was pulled even further out of context. We\u2019re now two steps removed from the book itself, but right there on site, you could see that Along The Way <\/em>had some kind of sex scene so parents should be cautioned.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the sex scene author Dessen does not recall writing.<\/p>\n **<\/p>\n In the months after the blogosphere dug into the issue, so, too, did other book media and the professional associations. Why? Because creating a system which rates content on subjective terms is a perfect tool for mass censorship.<\/p>\n Nine major organizations banded together in May 2010 to issue a statement and letter against CSM and its content ratings<\/a>, including the National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN America, the Authors Guild, and more. They give CSM benefit of the doubt with its intentions\u2013and it\u2019s a benefit with merit:<\/p>\n While we think that Common Sense Media provides a great deal of useful information, we have serious concerns about the ways CSM rates books. Our concerns fall into three general areas: 1) the implication that certain kinds of content are inherently problematic, 2) the negative attitude towards books, and 3) the potential that the ratings will be used to remove valuable literature from schools and libraries.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n To no one\u2019s surprise, CSM found its way into schools and libraries. The 2009, 2010, 2011 era was one rife with book challenges, though at a lesser degree than today. The aim of those challenges was what it is today, but the bulk of the focus was on graphic novels as comics became a more widely available and championed form of literature. CSM, founded in 2003, truly got its footing thanks to the lift from Barnes & Noble (+ money from other partnerships). The language in NCAC\u2019s letter to one school district said it best<\/a>: CSM and similar ratings websites are perfect for allowing books to earn the \u201cscarlet letter\u201d through scare tactics and pressure to be the best kind of parent.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re wondering who is behind CSM, here\u2019s your answer: \u201cprofessionals.\u201d The answer given in 2010 during this conversion is the same one posted on their website today<\/a>:<\/p>\n Our reviewers come from every corner of the media, academic, and parenting worlds. Many are known as trusted voices in their areas of expertise \u2014 from video games to apps. They have worked as reviewers for publications such as USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, AOL, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and more. Some are teachers, librarians, and experienced academics who\u2019ve studied the impact of media at length. All are passionate about both media and Common Sense\u2019s \u201csanity, not censorship\u201d approach to providing information.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n When integrated with Barnes & Noble, the reviewers for CSM were not named. They are now, and, with the cursory look I was able to make\u2013much of CSM now lies behind a paywall of $4\/month if you want more than your three free reviews per month\u2013it appears they attempt to match the background of the reviewer<\/a> with the content of the books being reviewed<\/a>.<\/p>\n That is promising, at least.<\/p>\n **<\/p>\n The years after initial integration, the discussion around CSM died down. But in the background, the organization was hard at work. In 2015, the New York Times wrote a lengthy piece about Common Sense Media<\/a> and the empire it had been building. Founder James P. Steyer is a master networker<\/a> who grew up in New York City, attended Stanford, and built connections through his work as a clerk to one of the judges on California\u2019s Supreme Court. Steyer and his company, despite the flaws in their system, have done a lot of great things over the last two decades when it comes to ensuring child safety in the digital world. It\u2019s an arena that needs advocates and, given that Steyer is a well-connected, cishet white man, his voice has gone a lot further than those without his privilege who\u2019ve been doing this kind of work. Yet\u2013it\u2019s not all good, and this is where we should pause.<\/p>\n Steyer is one of the biggest advocates today of banning social media use for those under the age of 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n Joyce Johnston, in her post at the Office of Intellectual Freedom\u2019s blog<\/a>, responded to the New York Times article. She offers the biggest takeaway to the story and to CSM more broadly, especially as the company gets praise from the \u201cpaper of record\u201d: while they put a lot of money into efforts to help protect children on the national level and helped push forward some beneficial legislation, at what cost?:<\/p>\n These days, Common Sense Media\u2019s initiatives contain a less than subtle paternalism based on the conviction that its values should control children\u2019s learning experiences.\u00a0 Early pronouncements like Core Belief 6<\/a>\u00a0 (\u201cWe believe that through informed decision making, we can improve the media landscape one decision at a time\u201d) suddenly come across as a determination to reform that landscape in its own image. Starting this month (March 3), the Kids Action group has even started rating legislation<\/a> based on how any potential law would\u2014in CSM\u2019s opinion, of course\u2013help or harm kids. It even intends to \u201cexpose\u201d sponsors of harmful bills\u2014again according to CSM\u2019s value system.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In 2017, Common Sense Media got another shout out in the New York Times. This time, the story was about how they hoped to combat gender stereotyping<\/a> by rating the portrayal of gender in the media. Based on what metric? That is in and of itself a problem, isn\u2019t it? Who\u2019s to say a character is too feminine or too masculine? Who gets to decide if a female character is \u201ctoo stereotypical?\u201d Certainly, that should not be put on a single reviewer.<\/p>\n It should come as little surprise there is nothing here in terms of non-binary gender identities. At the time of the article the company was \u201cconsidering\u201d whether to explore trans identity representation.<\/p>\n Public discourse around CSM seems to have disappeared after that article. At some point\u2013when is unclear, as there seems to be no information about it online\u2013the partnership with B&N ended. The end of that partnership did not, however, slow down CSM or cause them to disappear (reviews are just behind a paywall now). But our discussions about why the reviews are a problematic approach to literature seem to have left the building.<\/p>\n And yet, it needs a revival.<\/p>\n It needs to remain alive.<\/p>\n **<\/p>\n BookLooks and similar review systems are attempting to replicate CSM and hoping to find the same level of success. It\u2019s pretty impressive to go from the center of public discourse to so ubiquitous that no one questions the premise anymore. Few are asking why and how CSM has the kind of money and political connections to play a leading role in children\u2019s education and entertainment on one hand while setting up a system so perfectly tailored toward censorship and bias on the other (even if they believe in \u201ccelebrating\u201d banned books<\/a>).<\/p>\n It\u2019s even more impressive to do that in the same amount of time so many of us have been following book censorship.<\/p>\n Common Sense Media\u2019s core beliefs are no longer easy to find on their website (though they are still there<\/a>, including number 6). They\u2019ve become a lot more neutral looking. As such, they\u2019ve become easier to refer people to, and I hear and see educators and librarians do it all the time. I\u2019ve done it, too\u2013if a parent asks you whether or not a book is \u201cappropriate\u201d for their kid and you give them the description and they\u2019re not happy with your answer, what do you do? I am not going to make the decision whether or not a book that uses the word \u201cbullshit\u201d two times is okay for your 13-year-old because I\u2019m not reading a book and counting up swear words. That\u2019s not my job. It\u2019s also not the purpose of reading. You don\u2019t coparent with the government, but you want the government and its ancillaries to do the parenting for you.<\/p>\n This is exactly the problem and exactly the solution Moms are eager for.<\/p>\n Common Sense Media is now seen as an authority in the media: they\u2019re cited when the news talks about book bans\u2013this is an excellent example<\/a>\u2013and they\u2019ve become a place for outlets to turn to for quotes during the surge of book bans now. See this piece at Chalkbeat<\/a>. Common Sense Media even helped a librarian win their book challenge of Melissa<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n Huh? Huh.<\/p>\n The American Library Association (ALA) is clear on their stance when it comes to book rating systems<\/a>: they rife with potential to become tools that restrict First Amendment Rights. Ratings systems developed by private entities are not to be used in decisions in the library:<\/p>\n Any private group\u2019s rating system, regardless of political, doctrinal, or social viewpoint, is subjective and meant to predispose the public\u2019s attitude. The use by libraries, therefore, would violate the Library Bill of Rights. Libraries should remain viewpoint-neutral, providing information that patrons seek about any rating system equitably, regardless of the group\u2019s viewpoint.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is worth pausing here for a moment with the phrase \u201cviewpoint-neutral.\u201d The idea libraries are neutral has been disputed now for well over a decade, with increasing force as censorship has roared forth since 2021. This is where it comes from. Pro-neutrality advocates believe that utilizing review sources that aren\u2019t partisan extends to the library, as a whole, remains neutral. That is willful misinterpretation. Libraries are not and cannot be neutral<\/a>.<\/p>\n Libraries are non-partisan. The ALA may have fumbled that one with their language, as much as it might be purposeful misinterpretation on the part of those too lazy to do their job in offering materials, programs, and services to all <\/em>members of their community. Providing information about ratings systems equitably to patrons means giving all of the information: a patron wants to know about BookLooks? The patron learns where to find the system and who created it. That\u2019s doing the job, even if it means using the phrase \u201cHate Group\u201d to describe Moms for Liberty.<\/p>\n Viewpoint-neutrality does not mean free from fact.<\/p>\n **<\/p>\n Book banners play the long game. While I don\u2019t believe that Common Sense Media\u2019s goal has been book banning, and I support the right of those involved with the site to share their ratings, intent doesn\u2019t change impact. Parents given this information without context become subject to this tool. Without the expertise or experience or time or energy, they keep going back for more and using it to make decisions\u2026until they are no longer the ones making the decisions but instead are having the decisions to be made for them.<\/p>\n Then educators turn to these tools for answers, letting their role as leaders and authority succumb to a website whose ultimate goal is make enough money to turn a profit (yes, even a \u201cnonprofit\u201d like CSM).<\/p>\n BookLooks and Moms for Liberty are trying to do just this but on an overtly censorious level. The more distractions they can make, the less focus paid to how bad their tool is. The more they deny the system is theirs, the more they hope people don\u2019t connect them. If they can win influence in one arena, they might sway it in others. Labeling them a Hate Group might turn some folks off, but it\u2019ll sure as hell be a perfect marketing tool to get plenty of other folks on board.<\/p>\n Rinse, Repeat.<\/p>\n The speed of social media means that there\u2019s less time being spent asking questions about sources and looking at paper trails. Social media also ensures that criticism speeds by and isn\u2019t as easy to keep track or record of. You can\u2019t Wayback Machine Twitter or Facebook posts that get deleted quite as easily as you can a blog post. Thanks to a media that continues to cite and use BookLooks without naming the source, without looking at what BookLooks is doing, period, the faster they believe they\u2019ll be able to have the same kind of change in public opinion as Common Sense Media.<\/p>\n None of this even touches upon the dangerous lack of media literacy\u2013social or not\u2013plaguing us all.<\/p>\n It is the kids who have everything to lose when parents want a tool that does the work for them. It\u2019s the kids who become subjects of organizations who have their hands in reshaping the meaning and use of information, truth, and history.<\/p>\n The more we allow systems like these to go unchecked and the more we do so without looking back at the fights like these we\u2019ve already been part of, the easier it is to give up. The easier we make it to have our rights stolen from us by high-powered, well-connected individuals who believe they know what\u2019s right for us as parents, as non-parents, and what\u2019s right and just for our kids.<\/p>\n They may not coparent with the government, but I sure as hell do not coparent with them, nor do I consent to being part of their dirty scheme.<\/p>\n Do not get distracted, but do keep sounding the alarm.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Further Reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\n![\"Side](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa3d8f4c2-9b46-4323-b0db-ef5a12688378_1600x897.jpeg "\\"Side")
<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n