|
|
You need to send a help email using the get help link at the bottom of the page.
Include all the details (not passwords) and be prepared to wait. Standard turnaround is 3-5 working days
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can see your old account through Google cached images- you might want to take a look at the flickr Community Guidelines. The "Don't be creepy" rule includes not posting voyeur shots of unaware girls in bikinis and tagging them babes etc.
I know the Don't be creepy rule is vague, but that is one interpretation of it. www.flickr.com/groups/unsafe/ is a group that can help you stay on the right side of candid.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Don't be creepy? deleting someone without notice is creepy . Having extreme none understandable rules opens one up to such critisms and law suits
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ google search, seems if google is ok with the content being public for all ages why would flickr not be ?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ see his or her old account throught google? how do you know what it is?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i could see removing it for have the name pepsi in it thats trade marked,
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
?? Cos you google the old username. Or look on things like flickriver using the old name.
And when did the world start accepting what google thinks is ok?
Just dont fill your stream with predominantly photos which look voyeur related. Sure Flickrs wording is really vague in this and other areas. So just stay well clear of it?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
- Pepsi4me2 to Pepsi4me3 that doesn't take a huge intuitive leap now does it?!
The OP is unlikely to get an answer about the reason for deletion from Flickr in this this forum but, if Pepsi4me2 was the OP's previous account, creepy voyeur content was probably the reason for deletion.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
elementalPaul edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
Define "creepy voyeur" content.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the pictures are nothing to scream about, except a lack of worth
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
nytram ydnew edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
- I think a quick definition of voyeur will suffice:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voyeur
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you don't know what creepy voyeur content is, then Flickr isn't really concerned with your opinion. Either you don't have any and you're fine, or you do and you'll be gone soon.
Anytime anyone involves others for the purpose of sexual gratification without their consent, they deserve to be gone.
Hey look at that, a definition of "creepy".
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How can you steer clear of something that is ambiguous? flickr need to define creepy if they want people to understand this rule and adhere to it. Interestingly if you check the community guidelines in other languages they have a different nuance on that particular guideline. The german one, for example, suggests that people should not behave badly. That could mean anything, and is certainly different to what flickr seems to interpret as creepy.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Thanks for that helpful link
voyeur (plural voyeurs)
1. A person who derives sexual pleasure from secretly observing other people, especially when such people are engaged in some sexual activity.
2. An obsessive observer of sensational or sordid subjects.
So. In order to delete the account, Flickr should prove the individual is deriving sexual pleasure from the posted photo(s). Or that they are obsessive.
I fail to see how Flickr can claim to know either of these things.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Glad to see your back to defend the indefensible. It's such a noble cause.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
- you're very welcome, I'm all about the helping :-)
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
shims: if you purport to be about freedom and freedom of expression, then I would think you of all people would recognize that no one is indefensible.
It's easy to defend views that adhere to your own personal ideology. It's not so easy to be fair and seek the truth when it may not line up so cleanly to your worldview.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Not really following your drift.
What fairness and truth are you purporting to support? And what exactly is my world view?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"the" truth is what I'm purporting to support (on a court in a fort, of a sort). The one that is about actual facts, and not about your own personal bias. Every time someone gets yanked, your view seems to be that it was always and every time, unjustified. That seems nigh impossible to me, considering the odds, and the hilariously wide range of ways people find to misbehave on here.
A person doesn't have to derive sexual pleasure to commit sexual assault, an attempt is just as icky and wrong. So a photostream full of such voyeur content, with tags and groups aimed at the porn ogglers, is pretty clearly meant to be used to oggle. Doing so without the permission of the oggled, hits my creepy button, and Flickr's as well.
If it doesn't hit your creepy button, then you're kind of creepy, too. But as long as you don't throw up content to match your creepy predilections, you have nothing to worry about.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
how can you call a shot of a girl in bikini voyeur if the girl is in a public place and fully aware of the fact that photography is allowed in a public place?!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
how can you call a shot of a girl in bikini voyeur if the girl is in a public place and fully aware of the fact that photography is allowed in a public place?!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If it doesn't hit your creepy button, then you're kind of creepy, too.
dude, seriously. logic please.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo Tabesh wrote how can you call a shot of a girl in bikini voyeur if the girl is in a public place and fully aware of the fact that photography is allowed in a public place?! It doesn't have to be technically voyeuristic to be -- yes -- creepy, to create a seriously negative atmosphere in which people who have ventured out in public end up feeling themselves to be demeaned and emotionally abused.
It's one thing for me to put myself out here in this much bigger than local public in a sexual way; but if I were to come across photographs of myself in these "candid" contexts being discussed here I would be sick to my stomach. Leaving my house does not constitute my consent to being used as a sexual object all over the world. And that anyone should support the idea anyone has a right to turn my body into a public sexual object for others without my knowledge or consent makes me nauseous. Thank God Flickr doesn't think that that's okay.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lu, i have no problem with removing offensive contents.
but why without warning?
and why so vague? how do i know, every time i load a photo, it doesn't hit the searcher's creepy button? how can i get a good feeling of his button? my problem is not removing nasty/oogli/creepy shots. my problem is not being clear about it.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So wait....I shoot sports. If I shoot a local beach volleyball tourament and post it here, am I creepy? They are bikini clad, very attractive women that some may view as sexual objects. They have as much expectation of privacy as the sunbathers; that us to say, none.
Look, I have a young daughter and I don't want creeps oogling her either, but I also have no expectation that I can stop someone from taking her photo in a public place nor can I stop it from appearing online. I don't like what was on that stream either, but deleting it without notice and without recourse citing an arbitrary "creep factor" seems just as offensive as the photos that were in that stream.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Logic? How about context? The context is the photo page, the tags, the groups, and the other photos in the photostream. it's not what an image MIGHT be taken as, "accidental" like. It's the PURPOSEFUL collecting and posting and tagging of these images in that specific way. "sexy, hot, barely legal, boobs, ass, sneaky, secret, voyeur" are the kinds of tags you may want to avoid posting to your "occasional" public shots.
Logic? How about this. If you aren't clear on the concept, then it simply does not matter. Because you will do one of two things:
1. You will not post voyeur content, because you don't take those kinds of pictures.
2. You will post voyeur content, add a bunch of creepy tags, post it to a bunch of creepy groups, and be completely unaware that you are doing anything wrong.
if you do the #1, nothing bad will happen to you. If you do the #2, your account will be deleted, likely without warning (largely depends how much of your account contains similar content.) and Flickr will be quite content to have you NOT be one of their customers. They won't care if you are "unsatisfied" or "confused", because you'll be an un-customer by then.
That's what I mean about knowing what creepy is. If you do it and don't know, it doesn't matter because you will soon be gone. If you don't do it and don't know, it really doesn't matter, you just have innate personal issues with objectifying men or women without their knowledge.
Which on its own, isn't a Flickr rule violation.
In other words, who cares if they aren't clear about it? They don't list out every possible illegal thing people can post either. People who don't know what's illegal and post illegal stuff, will find out when their account is deleted. Who cares if they're confused? Flickr doesn't want them here.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oh i didn't even looked at that stream, so i am not talking about anyone specifically. i just want (1) clear and specific rules and (2) warning if something is so offensive that might kill my flickr account.
again, i have no desire to defend anyone, but myself, as a flickr user. i mostly shoot buildings downtown toronto, and hopefully that is not one of the things that hits the searcher's button.
---
edited for typos.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo Tabesh
Here's a staff statement about what might be considered a creepy account
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/95223/#reply625343
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
it matters to me as a consumer. look, i almost never take picture of humans. i enjoy shooting buildings and graffiti and such. i just want to have more clear guidelines in place. what the hell is "you know that guy, don't be that guy". seriously.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
" If you aren't clear on the concept, then it simply does not matter."
so if I want to build a community, I shouldn't care if my citizens are clear on the laws that can get them thrown out?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo: well if you're talking about your account, nope, doesn't tickle my creepy button even a little. If you're talking hypothetical, well what's the point in that?
I suppose if you don't know what qualifies as abusive, demeaning content and behavior, you're just going to have to live in constant fear.
Leesure: no, not the ones that should be thrown out. Easy peasy.
I mean, there's nothing that specifically says that people shouldn't post collections of naked children and put sexually oriented tags on them and make and invite lewd comments to them.
But that'd be a "customer" that should and would be disinvited from Flickr, with no regard for their concerns.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
thank you ColleenM. then why is it not somewhere i can easily read? why can't we replace "you know that guy, don't be that guy" with that? if that is a better definition? again (1) don't be vague (2) give them warning. that's my opinion of course, and it doesn't matter because as a member, i won't be a member to be a member when i am not a member anymore.
the searcher, i was clear on my points: be clear and warn. that's what i would have done.
anyway. i'm off shooting more voyeur skyscraper.
good night all.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo: Heather was quoting me.
Now that's ironical.
And yeah, if Flickr can find a way to include such language in their guidelines, without somehow opening floodgates to require similar details for every little thing people could do wrong (making the guidelines hundreds of pages and thus unreadable and unusable), I'd be all for it too.
Warnings are good, I don't mean to keep stepping all over that. I just have certain biases toward certain types of predatory people. Colors my opinions I'm afraid.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"I mean, there's nothing that specifically says that people shouldn't post collections of naked children and put sexually oriented tags on them and make and invite lewd comments to them."
But the laws of the government where flickr resides takes care of codifying that for you. There's a big difference between posting things that are illegal and things that someone who no one knows thinks is creepy.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Again, I certainly have no love foe what that guy was doing, I just don't think it's right to delete accounts without warning based upon a vague and arbitrary set of rules.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The searcher, Lu, Colleen,
i have no problem yanking pervs from flickr. but as a good customer i deserve explanation, i deserve to know what is wrong. also, i am sure there are better ways to define those criteria.
as a good customer, i want flickr to be a good service provider, i want a company with clear guidelines.
you know that company, don't be that company.
again, i am on the side of good people, not those bad ones.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo Tabesh
Can you give us a link to an internet company that does not have a statement in the TOS that allows them to remove content without warning?
As far as I know, there is no site on the web that does not have a clause in its TOS saying they can remove your content without warning. Flickr is no different.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sure you can remove accounts who violates TOS. maybe i am not clear. yank as many pervs as you can. i cheer for you. (1) be clear (2) give warning. when did i say don't remove an account?!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo Tabesh
It's the "warning" that's missing from every TOS. No company on the web has a TOS that requires them to give a warning.
Can you find one that does?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Can you find one that expressly serves a content and art community and who not only removes content but deletes it?
Give me one.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
My suspicion is that flickr are reluctant to institute a warning system for fear of the avalanche of correspondence that would be generated.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ѕhims wrote Can you find one that expressly serves a content and art community and who not only removes content but deletes it? Redbubble: "RedBubble reserves the right to review and if necessary remove any content from the website or to cancel your account at its sole discretion, either because that content breaches this agreement or any applicable laws, or otherwise."
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's one of my favorites, Zooomr, founded by Thomas Hawke
www.zooomr.com/about/tos/
Termination
The Company may terminate your membership, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the Site or through any Platform Application and/or prohibit you from using or accessing the Service or the Site or any Platform Application (or any portion, aspect or feature of the Service or the Site or any Platform Application) for any reason, or no reason, at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice, including if it believes that you are under 13. When we are notified that a user has died, we will generally, but are not obligated to, keep the user's account active under a special memorialized status for a period of time determined by us to allow other users to post and view comments.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And then there's Ipernity
www.ipernity.com/about/tos
10.3 You agree that Ipernity may, at any time and at its own discretion, terminate your access to the Service or close temporarily or permanently your account, especially in the case of:
* (a) extended period of inactivity for your account;
* (b) breaches or violation of the present Terms and Conditions of Use (or, at Ipernity’s own discretion if considering that your behaviour is tending to be disrespectful in short or long term);
* (c) request by law enforcement (for instance, if the Service provided was or became illicit);
* (d) discontinuity of the Service for users of your country of residence; or
* (e) Commercial non-viability of the Service.
10.4 In the event of termination, your account will be disabled and you may not be granted access to the Service, to your account or to any files or other content contained in it.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zoomr. Never heard of it. Got a site that actually means anything?
How about Facebook or Myspace?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ipernity? WhoTF are they?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Redbubble. Pointless. WhoTF are they? "cancel" not delete BTW
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Imagekind: You agree that Imagekind, in its sole discretion, may terminate your password, account (or any part thereof) or use of the Site, and remove and discard any Content you may have contributed to the Site, at any time for any reason or no reason. Imagekind may also in its sole discretion and at any time discontinue providing the Site, or any part thereof, with or without notice. You agree that any termination of your access to the Site under any provision of these Terms of Use may be effected without prior notice, and acknowledge and agree that Imagekind may immediately deactivate or delete your account and all related information and files in your account and/or bar any further access to such files of the Site. Further, you agree that Imagekind shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your access to the Site. Should you object to any terms or conditions or become dissatisfied with the Site in any way, your only recourse is to immediately discontinue your use of the Site and/or terminate your account.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ѕhims
Poor Thomas will be so disappointed.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Leesure,
You mean photos like this?
www.flickr.com/photos/jakerome/collections/72157607544194...
3 years of beach volleyball, hundreds of photos of attractive bikini-clad women. Now, since it's a professional event all the participants are well aware that they are being constantly photographed.
Does that make it creepy? Is it any different than taking photographs of the athletes at Wimbledon or the World Series?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ColleenM, why do you avoid the (1) part? can we be clear? or is that also not a popular move among websites?
also, maybe i was not clear about the phrase "warning". why this guy, at least, didn't receive an email like this:
dear mr. pervi perverson,
we deleted your account because you knew that guy, and you are that guy.
sincerely,
you know what company, that company
how hard is it to explain that to a customer?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pointing at Thomas Hawk does nothing to enhance or further you unsupportable points
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i also don't get that references to other companies. i don't have an account in any of those websites. i am a flickr member and i want to make it a batter company. i am a customer and i have the right. yes?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mo Tabesh wrote i also don't get that references to other companies. They were entirely in response to this:
Ѕhims wrote Can you find one that expressly serves a content and art community and who not only removes content but deletes it?
Give me one.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks brenda.
----
again:
(1) why not clear? --> how do i know i am not that guy?
(2) why no explanation even after deletion?
those are my concerns as a good customer. still no answer.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well... I did a google search for "pepsi4me2" and I didn't see any objectionable pictures. No nudity, nothing improper. Just lots of photos of young women out in public.
The shots were candids, but I didn't see any attempt to take embarassing photos.
I wonder why that account had to be deleted?
This may not be everyone's idea of great photography, but the approach of deleting his account seems heavy handed.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because they're not models, they're people out walking around, who would likely not care to have photos taken of their ass. Or, down their blouse. Just a guess.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakerome: your examples of beach volleyball do not include the accompanying sexualized tags or groups. I assume you're willfully trying not to find some, since they're everywhere on here.
Mo: I'm actually with you on this (who says arguments in here can't change people's minds?) Warnings are good. If Flickr doesn't want such content on their site, it's only a plus if they have something somewhere that maybe keeps them off before joining. Of course, that assumes people read the guidelines, the number of which experience shows, is about zero.
But it would be better than nothing.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes jakerome.......you creep! ;-)
@The Searcher: Warnings would be great, and, I think, necessary. However, what would be even more important would be having flickr retain the full content of deleted accounts while those who have had their accounts unceremoniously while allowing for some method of appeal.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marty4650
Here's why
The Searcher said
So if people would like to step up and defend the practice of secretly photographing women (and men, and children) and posting them to Flickr for the purposes of sexual gratification, and explain why that should be allowed on Flickr, or even why that shouldn't be considered "creepy", then please, the floor is yours.
And Flickr staff said:
This is pretty much the definition of what we consider to be "voyeur content" on Flickr.
Flickr staff doesn't just look at the picture. They look at what kind of title you've put on the picture, how you describe the subject, what tags you put on it, and what groups you post it to. They look at your whole photostream to see if it is full of pictures of women's boobs, taken without their knowledge, and tagged with a dozen different slang words for breasts.
There's a whole lot more to it than whether or not the photo was taken in public.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"so what have i done wrong"...here we go again
how many times do we have to hear this plea in the Help Forum before we see some constructive changes made to the way accounts are adjudicated...
for over two years now myself and others have called for clear and explicit guidelines...
"don't be that guy" just doesn't cut it...nor does pics you wouldn't show "Uncle Bob"
it's been suggested that a "fair warning" process would create an enormous workload for Customer Care...as Mo T has suggested we are customers here...but aside from that the members are also the ones providing the entertainment and the traffic to the site...so as partners we surely deserve a fair shake when it comes to the deletion of an account...
as it stands we now have a flood of OP's on the topic and as contributors here we are faced with second guessing why accounts get deleted...lately i've heard a wide range of "possibles" from the "creepy" factor to suggestive tags and even "sex talk" in the comments as reasons...
no one really knows why the level of deletions and recent account reviews has reached such a peak...perhaps shrinking broadband space makes it expedient for CC to shoot first and answer questions later...
"flickr is slow for me" and "hiccups" do appear to be popular topics around here these days...
the recent partnership between Yahoo and Microsoft might possibly explain why pressures from certain quarters have mounted to clean up the site...or at least make adult images less visible to those in the realm of the "safe" and "moderate"
but i can assure you...one thing is certain...there are not enough hours in the day to delete all the accounts necessary to clean up the site...nor do i believe is it likely to happen in the near future...
by my reckoning without the ad revenue provided by "restricted" accounts and groups the site would not be financially viable...and anyone in doubt of how the adult content part of the site continues to flourish can compare group searches under "kitties" with another for "pussy"
i think you'll see what i mean...
regardless...can't we find ways to rid the site of acrimony and learn to co-exist in the spirit in which the site was founded..as a way to enjoy and appreciate our many diverse outlooks on life...
and btw...before the introduction of the filters...there was a fair warning and civil arbitration process in place...
now we have groups devoted to the subject of "how to not to get your account deleted"
kudos to Colleen and others for doing an admirable job with the group...but as i've said many many times before... if we saw proactive reforms made to the entire process...perhaps we could get on with looking at images and leave these issues behind...
redundancy edit x 1
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
dnurv (9,498) edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
>>there are not enough hours in the day to delete all the accounts necessary to clean up the site
No harm in making a start though, eh?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
trending that way Patrick...
option two...ban adult content altogether...
not likely...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"no one really knows why the level of deletions and recent account reviews has reached such a peak..."
Could it just be that there are an increasing number of the types of account that attract them?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Adult content per se is not the issue. But there are some flavours (voyeur content in this case) which Flickr considers unacceptable. We don't have to agree with them - it's their site; their call. I personally don't see the need for individual warnings to be sent in all such cases, though I would support a clearer proclamation in the CG, particularly taking into account the global nature of the service.
There is a warning system in place, but Flickr should be left to decide when it is appropriate and when accounts have gone too far over the line. The nature of the transgression is always going to be a factor. If I get caught driving at 85mph on the motorway, I'd expect a fine and some points on my license. But if I'd also been drinking, then a disqualification would be the minimum penalty I'd be facing.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
art/porn...CC doesn't want to make the call
party pix/voyeur content...pretty mushy ground as well Patrick
so where do you draw the line...we are not reading a radar gun...we are talking about interpreting images...... images that have different meanings to an incredibly broad range of individuals...
you may recall a survey that went out from the site a couple of years ago...at that time members were asked to comment on site performance and suggest improvements...
at the time...and for very different resons i suggested that all first time viewers to a stream be directed to the profile page...in order that new visitors could get a handle on what to expect...
if that survey were sent out today i would suggest that each profile page include two things for anyone like myself posting adult content...
1)a click on waiver asking the visitor to verify that they are over eighteen
and
2)a waiver confirming the viewer was not offended by adult content ...
the individual and group filters help prevent members from accidentally coming across images that they find unsuitable but this additional safeguard would certainly save us all a great many headaches...and a lot of bad blood
like it or not the site is a dead duck without the flashers the pervs and alternative lifestylers that many find objectionable...
and frankly i'd be much more sympathetic to the deletion process and the enforcement of the filter system if the filters themselves actually did a good job of the one thing they were designed for (or so we are lead to believe)...which is protecting minors from smut...
but after having a "restricted" account now for over two years...i'm sad to say that in this regard i believe them to be a dismal failure...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and to the good Doctor...that is very likely true...and i would suggest that the reason for that might be that in certain circles flickr has the reputation for allowing people to show anything they want...
informing these members how to do that without getting deleted is something that doesn't seem to be part of the arrangement...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"so where do you draw the line"
It seems that Flickr draws the line when the account wholly or mostly consists of such images; when those images have titles, descriptions and tags that sexualise the subject without their consent; and when those images are then posted to a variety of groups set up on the illicit theme.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
agreed...no one knows the formula...but it appears group membership tags and "sex talk" are on the checklist of items that lead to a deletion...
so what's next..
.....
incidentally..there have been dozens of pro and semi pro party picer's here who've have had their wrists slapped for the odd uppy skirty downy breasty pic as well...and it seems a shame to me that these images have been deemed unfit for the masses...
so who's to decide whether or not it's sinful to take pics of twenty somethings getting sweaty on a dance floor and having the time of their lives...
.....
besides i don't mind saying that over the three years i've been here i've managed to put a fair bit of food on the ol' Yahoo table...the filters were introduced and that didn't change much really...there have always been new friends to meet and groups to join and fun to be had...
but somehow the "right to choose" regime has made it a less enjoyable experience...just is so far as so many great contributors have been lost in the process...
.......
i think this entire deletion process could have been averted if after rating our streams appropriately each account was given the "right to choose" who gets to see our images...
and in my case...that would not include...
children
anyone with an aversion to nude imagery of the human body
homophobes
and
anyone with an axe to grind...
think that'll fly over at flickr ideas
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In my many years as a criminal defense attorney, I have found that being explicit about what is and isn't acceptable really has little bearing on people's conduct (at least when they're inclined towards "criminal" behavior). If you're really a creep (and someone who takes voyeur shots for the purpose of sexually gratifying themselves and others, and demeaning the subjects of those photos by reducing them to mere sex objects) than knowing that flikcr does not allow those sorts of shots really isn't going to stop you from trying to post here.
Instead, it will raise all sorts of hairsplitting threads, along the lines of "my shots weren't creepy because even though I only took shots of women's erect nipples through clothing, it was with their consent, or I didn't post them to creepy groups, or my tags didn't use the word "tits."" There's a reason the CG are written as they are. Firstly, they're "guidelines" not hard and fast rules. Secondly, this is Flickr's community, and they can ultimately choose who is and isn't a member of that community. They don't have to welcome all sorts with open arms.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
if this is the person on "pepsi4me" blog via googling it, here's what i saw: a sunset, roses, girl sunning on beach (in swimsuit), and several other random shots of stuff around (a guy standing on the street).
wow, reeeeeal creepy. i'm so scared!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What's on their blog isn't necessarily what was on their Flickr account...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"having flickr retain the full content of deleted accounts while those who have had their accounts unceremoniously while allowing for some method of appeal."
Absolutely agree.
d_nurv: only people like you and I, people who don't hide in bushes looking for unsuspecting soft-core porn subjects, care about rule specificity. There is no "on the line" or "could be misconstrued" when it comes to this stuff. It's all pretty clearly and eggregiously, wrong (the ones that are deleted, not the non-wrong examples some folks posted in here as misguided hypotheticals). And when those wrong people come around complaining post-deletion, I don't have a lot of sympathy for their confusion and frustration. In fact I'm kind of ok with it. Something happened to them without their consent or knowledge? Oh boo hoo.
However, for the rare "on the line" issue, or the actual "hit the button too fast" mistake, which does happen, leesure's and my desire for some sort of recovery ability, would cover those pretty well.
In fact an ability to recover an account would be much more important than some extra list of don'ts in the guidelines.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i linked this to facebook, blogged it, tweeted it, and a buncha other things. the second day i joined (last yr) i discovered how capricious and abusive flickr's "policy" is and predicted--online--that it would cause uproar in the future, and is wide-open for lawsuits (but i doubt a civil rights suit, more a customer civil dispute).
in my 10 yrs of using yahoo (when there was no better alternative) services, i've seen the company doesn't give a rat's about its users. flickr is at the top of that food chain when it comes to this kind of thing. i even wrote them a letter suggesting they state clearly what the policies are so ppl could avoid getting deleted. but obviously they don't care.
dr keats, yes i realize they may have put different stuff on their blog, but i've had a lot of life (and art) experience in my nearly 50 years, and generally people's output doesn't vary all that wildly. i doubt--but am prepared to accept being wrong if showed creepy photos--that what this guy put on flickr was much different than what he puts on his blog.
but it could be, sure.
i think if ya'll look into more threads like this one, then hunt up the actual photos (as is sometimes possible right on flickr, and as i always try to do), it will be somewhat of an eyeopener.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
what @mo tabesh said, is what i'm getting at "my problem is not with creepy, it's with being clear about it"
exactly. "don't do anything your mother wouldn't like" is vague and just begging for endless disputes, because never will everyone agree.
"no candid bikini shots" or "no photos of topless women" or whatever is clear, and there's not much dispute there (tho nothing is absolutely immune to dispute, but the odds go way down).
and really, why can't flickr (a) remove the offending photos and (b) notify the user so they can have an opportunity to fix things? i mean, if someone has paid for a service and that service is denied for subjective reasons, is a note too much to ask from the company taking the money?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iquanyin wrote "no candid bikini shots" or "no photos of topless women" or whatever is clear, and there's not much dispute there (tho nothing is absolutely immune to dispute, but the odds go way down). There's *lots* of room for dispute there, actually. Photos of fully clothed women can be posted with all sorts of commentary and other context that makes the photo "creepy" in the way Flickr is using it. Photos of women in bikinis or topless (in, say, a parade or on a beach) can be posted in perfectly respectful, non-creepy ways. I don't see how this is something that can be precisely defined. Sure, it could perhaps use some more definition than it has now, but this professional reviser of other people's words can't see how to make that workable for both users and staff.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
last post:
--yes, many sites have a somewhat vague tos (guy nvr heard of zoomr? huh) but here's the difference: i've yet to see any of the other sites yanking content so capriciously (not necessarily this account here, i haven't seen it, but the ones i was able to view last year were not creepy at all; such as national geo type shots of native dances, etc).
of course flickr can't spell every single thing out. instead, it can warn users if there's a problem and spend time on the issue. when i accept money from someone for something, i expect that to include responsibility to either deliver the service, try to work out snags, or return their money....
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ruby...excellent point...and one that i've heard often here previously
but from my point of view the loose terminology has always...
-left the door way too open to interpretation and allowed for shifting terms of reference
-led to actions which seemed far more expedient than just
-failed to provide members with the hard information they need to act as good citizens...
but more critically...
-disguised the fact that certain kinds of content...namely hardcore imagery...even exist on the site
seriously...we can be as high minded and rigid about supporting the rules as we like...
but it's hard for me to imagine that these are the core values of a outfit
that hosts groups such as "Enjoy my wife's cunt" and 3,266 other groups devoted to said features of the female anatomy...
often when these discussions have cropped up phrases like "flickr's sandbox" and "love it or leave it" have come to the defense of the site and the way it treats it's members...
but that's precisely my point...adult content may be pushed to the margins and kept on the qt...but it's by no means an fringe element...there's nothing small about it nor is it an anomaly... and it's not likely to be going away any time soon...this is flickr's sandbox to a very large extent...certainly when it comes to generating traffic and exposing ads to non pro members...
i'm not making this stuff up folks...just stating the facts as i see them...
and for my money it's time we all took a deep breath toned down the rhetoric...and got on with the job of learning to enjoy one another...in spite of all our collective flaws...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
dnurv (9,498) edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
@lu good points, certainly. context is important. as to definitions, i am a former nonfiction copyeditor, so i understand how tricky it is. i think why flickr is running into hot water, as i reflect further, is--speaking of context--as much about how they implement things, if not more.
i've also had jobs where i was in charge of groups, and i've raised children, so i'm aware that many things are somewhat arbitrary, but thoughtfulness and consistency in administering rules, or supporting guidelines, goes a long way to having things run smoothly and the happiness level being higher.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"adult content may be pushed to the margins and kept on the qt...but it's by no means an fringe element"
Very true. The difference between allowed adult content (which I love, as long as they aren't elderly) and not allowed adult content, aside from legal/illegal, is simple: consent.
Having an image taken in public and posted on Flickr is not at all the issue. It is how that image is used and abused, the specific context surrounding the use of the image, that decides if a user is "creepy". Involving women and men into purposely sexually fetishized collections without their consent, is abusive.
In other words, "creepy" isn't a rule used to describe content. It describes the user, and user behavior. Creepy behavior gets your photos yanked, regardless of the specific content of the images.
More specific warnings about such behavior, I'm fine with. Though I suspect there is such a wide rainbow if icky behavior possible, that it may quickly become a too-long unmanageable list.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
TS...
when it comes to these issues it's normal to look to the account holder as the offender...as discussed any reasons we might come up with here to explain the deletion are pure conjecture...
however there may be more to this current trend than meets the eye...
just after the filters were introduced vigilante groups with organized blocking campaigns were prevalent on the site as you know...
this situation appears to have gone away...but has it...or has it simply become more covert and stealthy...
about eight weeks ago the algorithm for Explore was cracked by a European group and images were gamed in order to appear in Explore...
according to another recent post it looks as though the gamers have changed their tactics slightly...instead of voting their own images into Explore they are now voting others out...
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/103820/
it's very likely that the same tactics are being used to target all manner of members for all manner of reasons...
.....
pls add people with default icons and multiple accounts on my list of people who are on my "right to choose" list...
i choose them as nays
sorry typos
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> The difference between allowed adult content (which I love,
> as long as they aren't elderly)
Hey!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(1) why not being clear?
(2) why no explanation even after deletion?
though i lost hope to get an answer here.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You can get an explanation after deletion - the person deleted can e-mail flickr and ask for a detailed explanation. Flickr will e-mail them a reply. For privacy reasons, staff has stated that they won't discuss specifics of any particular account here in the forum.
As for your first question, staff has also answered that previously in the forum (it was along the lines of my hair splitting argument).
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> though i lost hope to get an answer here.
And properly so.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I had a contact on flickr berfore who liked to take lots of candid street photography. His thing seems to be just walking around town and taking pictures of everything he encounters. Then over time he started trending towards taking lots of closeup shots of mens crotches and butts just as they are walking around out on the street. It didn't really offend me - it was actually pretty funny at first, but then as he starts taking more and more shots like that, you have to wonder if there is some psychosis at work. Definitely creepy. Then suddenly he disappeared from flickr, presumably his account was deleted just like the OP. I don't think it matters if there is actual nudity involved at all. If the photos on flickr reveal a dark disturbed individual who is likely acting out fantasties that may escalate, then flickr is doing the absolute right thing in deleting the accounts.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
it is flickr's job to contact the customer not the other way around.
avoiding clear guidelines makes everything easy, but it is a cheap trick. not that i give a damn to the accounts of those creeps who were deleted. as a good customer, i found flickr evades to answer.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>>it is flickr's job to contact the customer not the other way around.
I don't think there are many services in the world that follow this principle, unless you count sales calls. If I have a problem with my ISP or telephone company or a store I bought something from, I'd be kinda shocked if they even returned my calls, let alone initiated one.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
really?! your PAID account is being deleted, and you don't expect to know why? you are SUCH a good customer. i hope flickr get more and more nice users!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
so what if your cable company or your cellphone provider decide to change something tiny in your account, contract, etc. they just do whatever they want? and you will send them a thank you card? can you and i please sign a contract? i am a grad student, and i can use some easy money!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't have cable or a cellphone, but if a service provider cancelled my contract because I'd violated the terms of the agreement, I'd simply take my business elsewhere.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cool, let's have a contract then. anything i can provide for you that i can cancel and make some money? i can come up with vague TOS to easily deny you the service or product. i can simply say "you are that guy". please let me know, i really can use some money to pay my tuition fee.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The real problem here is that definitions are highly subjective. And one person's idea of creepy may not be another person's idea.
So Flickr must post rules that are vague and leave them lots of room for disgression. It pretty much comes down to judgement and common sense, which are pretty hard to convert into simple rules.
While we can all agree that kiddie porn must be banned, and that photos of your cat posing for you must not be.... the problem becomes everything between these two extremes.
MOST people will think that beach photos are perfectly acceptable, but there are some who would object to these too .And I think the OP illustrates this by stating his case.
A GREAT MANY people here might think that artistic nudes are acceptable, provided they are properly tagged and filtered. But SOME will still think this is morally wrong.
ALMOST EVERYONE will object to photos depicting bestiality, violence, child pornography, etc.
And the problem is further compounded by the captioning. An innocent photo can become offensive if certain captions are applied. And while I was able to see the OP's photos on a google search, I could not see any caption he used. And perhaps that is the reason his account was terminated. The pictures seemed innocent enough, but the captions might have made them offensive.
I don't buy the argument that "you need a model release for photos shot in public." and Flickr is merely enforcing copyright laws. Assuming there is no commerical use of crowd photos, street photos, beach photos, etc. This argument is so inane it is laughable. All sensible people understand that their privacy rights are highest in their own homes, and lowest in crowded public places.
I also believe it is really stretching logic to think that women have the absolute right to parade around in public scantily and provacatively clad, but also have the privacy right not to be noticed!
"Voyerism" is when people are viewed who have the expectation of privacy. Like when they are in their homes, or in changing rooms, or in restrooms. There is no expectation of privacy when you are walking about in crowded public places. Unless you want to invent one, by applying tortured logic.
There is also a vast difference between "bad taste" and "illegal." If anything that was in poor taste was banned, then we would have no rap music videos. And Howard Stern wouldn't be earning $50 million a year.
In the end, Flickr has only two options:
1. They can have an "anything goes" policy, which clearly would be objectionable to MOST people, or
2. They can create some rules, and enforce them as best they can, even though this will lead to constant disputes with people who thought the rules were applied unfairly.
And the Flickr users have two options too:
1. They can accept the fact that there must be rules of some kind, even it they are impossible to consistently and fairly apply, or
2. They can go elsewhere.
Asking Flickr, or any other photo sharing service, to devote a great deal of time, attention and labor to screening and censoring would impose a huge financial burden on them. Assuming it could be done. And that cost would have to be born by the paying customers, making your $25 a year account cost something like $50 a year, or more.
We must either trust Flicr to do the best job they can, or go elsewhere. Because each of us cannot expect them to write their policy for EVERYONE based on our own INDIVIDUAL standards.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And one person's idea of creepy may not be another person's idea.
So Flickr must post rules that are vague and leave them lots of room for disgression.
That's a non sequitor. Because one person's idea of creepy may not be another person's idea, rules should be more specific so that there is less room for confusion.
> It pretty much comes down to judgement and common sense
There is no common sense. Read your own post.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Marty4650 That was one of the most well thought out, clear and intelligent analysis I've read so far on this subject. Thank you.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Since you are convinced that whatever you do, Flickr are just going to pocket your $25 and cancel your service, your best bet is not to pay them any more. You could also cancel your cable and cellphone services, just in case they are planning to screw you too.
Hey, look, you're well on your way to paying your tuition fees now :-)
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am surprised this is still a surprise. The 'voyeur' crowd have known for almost 3 years that accounts that contain sexualized photographs of women, men, boys, and girls are deletion fodder.
You put a beach photo of a child on flickr and tag it: kid, underwear, nipples, topless - you are gone. Have a similar account with adults and the number of photos increase before you cross the line, but tags like slut, twink, whore, rent boy, and posting into groups will do for you.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Civilized Explorer....
Specific rules that would cover every possible situation would really be nice. But it would also be impossible to do. And by making rules too specific you make it impossible to enforce any violation you forgot to list.
This is why we have crimes like "disorderly conduct" on the books. They pretty much give the police officer a wide lattitude to decide what constitutes a violation without specifically listing every possible thing that could.
And... yes, this is not a perfect way to do things. But it's the only practical way if you want a civilized society with manageable rules.These are by necessity a compromise of some sort.
We trade perfection for practicality.
Of course, if you create unmanageable rules, you end up with anarchy.
I'm willing to guess that there probably are other photo hosting services with few if any rules. And people who prefer that sort of climate should patronize them.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"I don't buy the argument that "you need a model release for photos shot in public." and Flickr is merely enforcing copyright laws."
They aren't. Who is making that argument? There is nothing in Flickr's terms that prohibit display of people photos sans model release or permission. That is a far, far cry from "voyeur".
""Voyerism" is when people are viewed who have the expectation of privacy."
That's not nearly the only definition of "voyeur". From a variety of dictionaries:
"A person who derives sexual gratification from observing others, especially from a secret vantage point."
"A person who derives sexual pleasure from secretly observing other people"
So again, this isn't about the images themselves, or what expectations people may have while wandering around in public. It is about two things:
1. The behavior of the person posting the images. The rule is about behavior, not content. And determining behavior includes all of those VERY OBVIOUS, and NOT AT ALL SUBJECTIVE OR VAGUE, elements that describe behavior, such as tags, descriptions, contacts, groups posted to, and depth and breadth of the collection.
2. Consent to be included in someone else's sexual acts/gratification.
If you aren't hiding behind trees and filling your Flickr account with strange men and women, and then tagging them with terms like "anal, rough, fisting, blowjob, cumbucket, rape, fuck, titties", then you have nothing to worry about.
If you are that person, then I don't really care if you go away confused. I just want you to go away.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ The Searcher... that was my response to carie~ellen who said early in this thread, in response to my question... "I wonder why the account was delted?."
She replied "because they are not professional models."
And I agree with you that there is no requirement that you photograph professional models and get model releases. But evidentally she felt there was.
And I also agree with you about the multiple definitions for voyerism. But the fact is Flickr cannot guess at anyone's intent. They can only observe their behavior.
It should be fairly obvious that people expect privacy in rest rooms, and it would be unreasonable to expect privacy in public places.
And I did assume that the tags or descriptions were why the OP's account was terminated, since none of his photos that I found on a google search seemed offensive.
My further point was that even when subjects are clearly defined, we often will disagree on what is offensive. Which can also explain why some of the same people who didn't find "Bush is Hitler" photos offensive are highly offended by "Obama depicted as the joker" photos, which was the topic of another thread.
Our notion of "offensive" can sometimes be constant, and can sometimes shift, based on other factors involved.
Personally, I'm glad my three daughters are grown now, because if they were small children, and I took photos of them at their dance recitals, someone would assume I must be a child molestor. Because currently, some people think it is inappropriate to take pictures of children. Even your own children.
I think we essentially agree.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
Marty4650 edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
- Pepsi4me2 to Pepsi4me3 that doesn't take a huge intuitive leap now does it?!
- I think a quick definition of voyeur will suffice:
Mo Tabesh 
Marty4650 
"no one really knows why the level of deletions and recent account reviews has reached such a peak..."
What's on their blog isn't necessarily what was on their Flickr account...
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads