Twitter publishes ads on the website of independent publishers.
But they’re not ads on Amazon.com.
The site, which has become a target of anti-trust lawsuits, is also an advertising target of Amazon.
The ads appear in Amazon’s main ad section of the site, alongside its own list of products and services, such as Kindle.
The ads are not part of the company’s editorial decisions.
There is a good reason why publishers would want to keep the ads on their site.
Publishers, and publishers in general, have been using Amazon as a platform for their work for years.
Amazon’s ad-free publishing model has helped drive growth for publishers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and has helped boost the industry’s visibility on social media and the internet.
As publishers have been trying to compete with Amazon, the company has started to step in with ads to promote its own products and offer discounts to publishers.
Publishers have been wary of this, arguing that it’s only fair to pay for advertising in their books and their own publications.
For some publishers, this has been a boon.
Publishers like Amazon’s The New Yorker have made it easier for them to market their books through Amazon.
For others, it’s been a setback.
Amazon’s latest move to get rid of the ads has led to a backlash, with some publishers calling it a betrayal of their editorial freedom.
One publisher, The Washington Post, tweeted, “I think the ads are fair.
But I’m not buying it, because I think they’re a violation of editorial independence.
If Amazon wants to pay me to promote my book, they should pay me directly.
But if I want to support the paper’s editorial independence, I have to buy its product, which costs me money.”
“The Washington Post was the first to make a formal complaint,” wrote The Atlantic’s Jamelle Bouie.
“The paper has since taken up the issue, and it’s now at the forefront of a growing backlash against Amazon’s attempts to silence and undermine the First Amendment.
It’s time to stop buying into the false, and often misleading, rhetoric that the First Ammendment was never meant to protect you from.
The Washington Times and the New Yorker should step up.”
Another publisher, Slate, added, “We’ve long had a good relationship with Amazon and it makes perfect sense that Amazon would want us to keep them on board as they compete with one another for readers.
But we also don’t think Amazon’s tactics should be allowed to continue.”
It’s unclear what happens next, but the criticism from publishers is growing.
“We’ve been hearing this for a while, and the criticism is just too intense to ignore,” wrote Slate’s Matt Yglesias.
“Amazon’s actions seem like a blatant violation of the First and Second Ammigos and our First Amendment rights, which are being trampled on.
We will be keeping an eye on it, and will do whatever we can to help the First Party in this case to get the support they need to move forward with their actions.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This post originally appeared on The Verge.