|
How can your private photos be subject to the heckler's veto? They're private and the only people that can see them and hence comment on them or click the "May Offend" button on one is someone you have personally included in the list of allowed viewers, i.e. family or friends. If someone in that category has "Vetoed" your private photo then you should be more careful who you make family of friend.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
everyone's photos displays the most recently uploaded photos. if someone wanted to upload something offensive but proactively mark it "may offend," they wouldn't have a chance to do that until it was in their photostream and thus, already displayed on everyone's photos for at least a few seconds. i'm pretty sure there's a way to stop displaying everyone's photos on your home page though.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually, it (mildly) irritates me that my photos show up in Everyone's Photos before I've had the time to title and describe them. Perhaps Flickr could add a small delay, say, ten minutes, before the pics showed up in the streams?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You can hide everyones photos.
I was tempted to after seeing the alarming number of cat photos.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I find that nude photos are to be somehow protected from children under some age, I have found a very young boy being very happy with some 1 january 1st photos, some of them displaying fairly nudity.
I understand that at least the group administrators should make :
or see who becomes member, and all are adult age
or distroy nude showing photos
at least it is what I think and do whenever possible
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What's wrong with nipples?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you use the Uploader on the web site or the Flickr Uploadr tool, I believe if you mark the photos "private" at that stage they never make it into the Everyone's Photos stream.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you're replying to me, CSG, that's not what I meant. (In fact, I have a whole bunch of private photos on Flickr.) I just meant that I want to caption, tag, and describe my photos, and it's irritating that they get "published" automatically before I have a chance to do this. I suppose I could upload them as "private" and then do a batch action to make them "public," though... if it's possible to do that as a batch action.
/me goes off to check
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, it's possible. That's what I do, although I never did find out whether this means that they will not show in the "Photo's from your Contact's" stream - private photo's are excluded from that feed, you see. I always assumed that it did prevent them showing, which is very irritating.
It would be nice if making a photo public for the first time allowed it to pop into that stream to allow the correct annotation of photo's before release.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why does everything have to be appropriate for work? If your concerned about it, rather than trying to change flickr, maybe you shouldn't surf at work.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ooooo, there speaks the voice of a conscientious worker or possibly a manager. lol.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
disclaimer: Right after I composed this note, I sent a note to two flickr emps saying they could delete it. But now that it has generated a bunch of responses, perhaps I should reply.
I've seen more than nipples, but photos of copulation of two different kinds of couples. Being a site which enables anyone with an internet connection to see pix of copulation, or one which provides access to images of folks proudly displaying swastika tatoos, I believe, raises questions which go beyond my own mere prudishness. In retrospect, I should have raised this question "instead" with flickr staff instead of in this forum. I apologize.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Petteri - you can caption, tag, and describe the photo before you upload it. Search the Flickr Forums (FlickrHelp, FlickrIdeas, FlickrBugs) for info on how to use the IPTC header. In Photoshop, press ctrl-alt-I to access the IPTC header editor.
Then, when your photo hits Flickr, it will already have a title, description, and the appropriate tags.
@Catskills Grrl - yours is the voice of reason, but it is drowned out by the voice of pragmatism. People surf from work. Millions. No one is going to change that, so it is pointless to even try.
Flickr recognizes that and has given the community tools to help us help each other in situations like this. If you upload a photo that could get someone fired for looking it at, and you refuse to use those tools, then I think it's definitely selfish and even a little childish to refuse to participate in said social structure on principle and therefore cause unsuspecting people to possibly lose their jobs. I know I would feel terrible if my photo caused someone to lose their job and I had the tools to prevent that from happening and I didn't use them.
It's not hard to flag a photo that could cause someone to lose their job as "May Offend." And if you don't, I promise there are others out there who will, but maybe not until after someone has viewed it at work and gotten in trouble.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Eric, thanks for this analysis. Part of my point is that it's also "selfish and childish" regarding the implications to flickr, per se.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think it's important that people stop and think before they push a button that keeps it from the general public. Here is some background info on the Swastika...it doesn't always have to have a negative connotation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Eric in SF -- hey, thanks. I hadn't thought of that. I'll check that out. I just don't Photoshop all my uploads -- many come straight out of the RAW converter...
/Petteri
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@pterandon: some of the implications to flickr of people not flagging their own non-work-safe photos as "May Offend" are that certain countries and "net nanny" type services will consider blocking Flickr for this or that reason. Self-policing is always easier than having it imposed upon you.
Now the hard part is determining when you've crossed the line away from a rational determination of what images "May Offend." This is due to the wildly varying standards imposed by other countries and even to a much smaller degree, various employers. This subset of the issue can produce quite a heated discussion itself.
(edit to fix grammar)
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Eric Hunt. edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
Wow, can you imagine how bland Flickr would be if it were totally safe for work? Corporate culture often demands not just covered nipples, but utter blandness of thought. Really, surfing a site like Flickr is never going to be 100% safe for work, because it's NOT WORK!
On the other hand, the thing that usually gets people fired is going to sites like "hotmilkjugs.com," not the occasional accidental nipple view on Flickr.
ps, you can choose to designate your photos as private *before* you upload them, which isn't a bad idea if they're offensive.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
alex.DC edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
|
If what people occassionally view on flickr puts them at odds with their company policy than the answer is to not surf at work. You can not regulate what people find beautiful or meaningful or tasteful or offensive without policing flickr to a ridiculous degree and destroying what has made flickr a success. Flickr users must take personal responsibility and use their judgement. Flickr already allows you to hide photos from 'everyone' -- that should be sufficient.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
urbandiscount [deleted] says:
simple solution: don't surf flickr at work. don't they have policies on that?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm mostly in agreement with Catskills Grrl on this one. But just as an added aside, doesn't the Flickr Uploader offer a "mark as private" batch option? If having your pics appear in Everyone's Photos bugs you, why not just mark them as private right in the uploader?
(And please, don't say "I don't use the uploader." There's a simple fix for that.)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If by Flickr Uploader you mean the application, you can also mark them as private at www.flickr.com/photos/upload/, of course.
So there is really no excuse!
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
teotwawki edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
In much of South East Asia, the Swastika is a sacred Buddhist symbol of good fortune. In many North Western European countries, the female nipple is accepted as a normal and unshocking part of the body (and why not?) As a child I frequently came across the topless 'Sunshine Girls' in the UK papers, and the experience distinctly failed to scar me for life.
Point being, porn is in the eye of the beholder. And flickr is NSFW anyway, unless you're a photographer or graphic artist or something. When I was doing my IT desk job I certainly didn't want to be caught going through pictures of 'squared circles' or nipples when I was supposed to be working. Why should I have your country's archaic puritan morality-based legal structure imposed upon my enjoyment of the site?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've often thought the "safe for work" idea was a bit strange, because most employers wouldn't like the idea of people getting paid to surf Flickr in the first place.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Eric, I have the deepest respect for your unstinting efforts to keep this raucous enterprise afloat, but I'm afraid that inviting us to pre-censor our own work on the grounds that someone might get fired for looking at it at work just doesn't wash.
If people are likely to get fired for looking at inappropriate material, then surely it us up to them to take responsibility for their own actions and not risk looking at anything that might jeopardise their jobs ?
Why on earth is it up to me to protect them from my offensive uploads ? And we both know that none of us is going to get anywhere trying to define "offensive".
Of course Flickr has a vested interest in getting as many people to use the site as much of the day as possible. You don't want hundreds of thousands of people disconnecting just because they should be concentrating on their spreadsheets.
But I don't feel at all "selfish" or "childish" by refusing to hide any of my pictures from public view, potentially offensive or not. That's actually called freedom of expression, and as long as Flickr doesn't start making rules about what can be uploaded and what should be banned, I hope photographers here will continue to express themselves without worrying about other people's jobs.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry - I am just a little more sympathetic and realistic about people surfing at work. I am not advocating NSFW photos be blocked - just flagged as such so that someone can't see them on the interestingness page.
I've said it in other threads - there are just as many workplaces that treat their employees well and allow them to surf at work during breaks, lunches, after official hours, as there are workplaces that prohibit all non-work-related surfing. Many tech companies have no surfing prohibitions outside of "Dude, just get your work done and no one will care."
And for a reality check here - I surf at work and have never once came across a photo that was innappropriate, so to some degree this discussion is a little on the academic side, at least from my perspective.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Tampen - I understand and respect your position as well. Just be prepared for others to "censor" your work for you with the tools provider by Flickr.
We are all in this together - I think a lot of people lose sight of that.
(edit to swap two words for better readability)
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Eric Hunt. edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
Making Notes [deleted] says:
People at my place of work have been fired for surfing pornography sites. Not surprising really. However, if you stumble across something that isn't safe for work on a site where you wouldn't expect it, you may well be pulled up on it.
Now, if you're someone who doesn't make a habit of doing things like that, many employers would be fair and give you the benefit of the doubt, but warn you to be careful in future. If you think you've stumbled on something you think you could be pulled up on, you may be more likely to be treated with respect if you own up to it, as opposed to being caught. If you're surfing during your lunch break or at another time that's acceptable to your employer, then they may be absolutely fine with this. IF however you are surfing when you should be working, you've only got yourself to blame.
To be fair, it IS unfortunate if you have an employer who would fire you on the spot without even giving you a chance to explain yourself. But that's unfair dismissal and you could take your employer to court over it.
You can spin this one of a number of ways, but the bottom line is that you are responsible for the sites you visit when you're at work. Many companies have some form of security policy that states this quite clearly. If you still do things that you shouldn't and you do them regularly and hope that nobody notices... well, I don't think the problem lies with Flickr.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
take responsibility for your own actions.
Don't go to NSFW sites on company time.
Its not flickr's job to cater for every possible corporate policy.
p
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
<---- high fives Philippe.
Hey, I look at Flickr during work hours, between tasks and during breaks. I dare say I'm more productive than most of my co-workers.
I don't look at Everyone's Photos at the office. "Interestingness" seems much safer - but then I doubt a blip of nipple would get me fired. Now, lingering and dawdling over such photos, would perhaps trigger a report.
Part of my job is crawling geek sites and researching UI issues, so I guess there's more leeway.
I like the Flickr custom of 'privatizing' or 'may offend'ing explicit or racy photos. Self-policing will prevent external policing. That said, I agree with the above that Flickr shouldn't have to be SFW, because it isn't work.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Van in LA edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
why is there not a "May Contain Cats" option that people could set on their pictures?
that would also be a great help.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
take responsibility for your own actions.
Good counsel. I think the advice goes both ways, however.
Q: Is it okay for an internet company to provide German citizens access to images of people proudly brandishing swastika tatoos?, or is the person uploading such and not marking it private doing something irresponsible against flickr's well-being?
Q: Are there no countries in the world where there's a problem providing occasional access to images of copulation to anyone with no age restriction, OR is the person failing to mark it as private doing something irresponsible against flickr's well-being?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Q1: Of course it is. How dare anyone presume to restrict access and censor content based on their perceptions of the senssibilities of their potential viewer? To restrict this would prevent any news channel/site from reporting National Front activity. And as previously stated, swastikas have more than one connotation.
Q2: Try Holland. Where's Marco when you need him?
Flickr have long made the policy that Porn is unacceptable. Otherwise they try as best they can to avoid censorship of viewpoints or images as much as they can. Any incitement to hatred or vindictive actions are jumped on, but if possible they allow free expression of views. Seeing a swastika on someone's arm doesn't necessarily mean that the poster is expressing a desire to kill or supress all non whites, does it? They may be using the image to punctuate a point about racism or intolerance. Context is all important.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I hate that I'm getting sucked into this, but after seeing the same topic and responses come up over and over, I can't resist.
Honestly, I spend a lot of time on Flickr, some of that at work (though I shouldn't), and... almost NEVER see anything worse than a naked newborn in everyone's photos.
I just went through the latest 10 pages or so of everyone's photos and that was it, naked newborn. No swastikas, copulation, not even a bathing suit shot.
I seriously doubt that a nipple in thumbnail view is really going to get you fired, unless you're surfing flickr with your boss looking over your shoulder. Now if you have to see the large image, that's another question.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.buddhamuseum.com/shakyamuni-lotus-bronze.html
an example of non-nazi swastikas.
Maybe that will help with the fear of scary symbols.
As for the fear or nipples, you may be on your own.
try looking at some things that look like nipples and work your way up to the real thing.
This is a good one to start with
www.flickr.com/photos/unbridled_expression/81780885/
toooo advanced?
Try these
www.flickr.com/photos/o_caritas/62159501/
www.flickr.com/photos/ericinsf/57307426/
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
ACreepingMalaise edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
But seriously guys? The cat pictures? I'll take down my macros of Christmas decorations if the cats get neutered... Although oddly the ornaments are my most viewed ones.
Being direct, personal web use in work is generally excluded in your contract so I would argue (if caught and thats my plan :) )the 'I am looking at art' statement. And judging on the real world there are enough people out there willing to whistle on the Nazi symbolism for most stuff, most places to be stopped.
I was in the Ann Frank museum a couple of days ago and after viewing the rooms (you step through the actual bookcase) and considering the people who corrupted the swastika for all time, visitors are asked - should Hitler's autobiography be readily available. About 80% of all visitors to the museum have said yes. We may not like that answer as individuals, but having seen the hope that died in Bergen Belsen, it makes one realise the authoritarian banning of things can lead to worse results.
Stopping porn on here makes sense but the destruction of images for political reasons is dangerous.
Flickr is a great community and like all others I am sure it will evolve.
(Can we get rid of the cats now?)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Please remove the pornography. It just isn't pleasant. It's degrading and not appropriate for children since our kids can have access to it. And a quicker way to remove it from your available photos to view. I would be very happy.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
okay, once again, since when does a nipple or two = porn? This is a photography site, and photographers have been taking pictures of the naked human form since the dawn of the medium. No matter how much religious zealots may wish to change that, they are sadly still outnumbered by those who see beauty and artistry in the human form. Personally, I don't let young children use the net unsupervised, so that I can help them avoid &/or understand images that might distress or confuse them.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
oh dear. not this again.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As for the fear or nipples, you may be on your own.
try looking at some things that look like nipples and work your way up to the real thing.
...can anyone recommend effective ways of cleaning screens and keyboards? :)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
KnowWonNose [deleted] says:
If you don't like cats Flickr is not the place for you.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would like to see anything that anyone might upload.
This is a great opportunity for someone to use the flickr API and provide a filter service through another domain. That can let people customize what they see based on their preferences. Of course it won't be perfect and it might splinter the community, but I guess people can decide their own tradeoffs. "NSFW" or other tags are too subjective for anyone to decide except the viewer. Let them decide through their own preferences via another domain and leave the flickr.com interface simple.
I would much prefer that flickr.com focus on cool new features/technology and on improving existing service. The recent "Recent Activity" speedup is an impressive example of the latter and much appreciated. I came to flickr looking for coolness and I found it. I found interestingness too, which is also cool! There are a heck of a lot of great ideas in the FlickrIdeas group. Now give me more, more more! :-)
Just my 2 cents. Thanks!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
please, there are almost as many dog photos as cat photos.
you people are cat bigots and you know it.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
KnowWonNose [deleted] says:
@samgrover Anything that will help to minimize exposure to all those cats!
@emdot Yeah... so what??? ;)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm with emdot - you're all specieists!!
;P
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
KnowWonNose [deleted] says:
The worse part is that cats have 8 nipples and they are rarely clothed.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm troubled by how the sublime beauty of the nipple is a kind of emblematic signifier which threatens to penetrate the essentially transitional quality of art.
I use alcohol for my keyboard GustavoG...it helps to take few swigs too.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Marcus M edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
Sniv [deleted] says:
Nose! You are so right! I say down with the cat porn!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads