|
I don't blame them for blocking images in certain countries that are illegal there. They don't have a choice. But that can't be the whole story on Germany since porn isn't illegal there.
My issue is: they should have told us; and they should have told us that the filters no longer mean "flag images that some people might choose not to see", but now mean "flag images that will be illegal in certain jurisdictions". That's a completely different thing.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I can't imagine this to be based on actual German law. There could however be an injunction from a private lawsuit that could force a reaction like this. An official statement from Flickr in this forum is overdue ...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Where is Flickr staff input on this?
Probably waiting for a slew of queries from the mainstream media so that they can get the official view out. You'll might get SB later on.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
From initial research this afternoon, there is a definite law in Germany to protect minors from accessing unsuitable content. I'm not saying that this is the reason behind all this, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but the talk of pornorgraphy and racism seems to be a little vague; a banner to wave, instead of knowing the actual reasoning.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
kucharo: "Why would Flickr want to deliberately piss off a whole slew of users unless they had external pressure to do so?"
But why doesn't Yahoo at least openly dissociate itself from those local policies?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm from the USA, so this does not appear to be directly affecting me. But if this is an intentional action by flickr, I am very disappointed that they have not responded yet. That is pretty unacceptable.
Hello? Is there anybody in there (*knocks on monitor*).......just nod if you can hear me, is there anyone home?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because Yahoo! is essentially a business, not a cause, and it must abide by international law, or face lawsuits and potential closure.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The sky is falling!
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Corey: LOL, I've been thinking that all afternoon! Regards, Cocky Lockey :-)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
I also can't think of a certain law over here in Germany that would require to ban all the "restricted" and "moderate" content. As far as I can say, the Flickr filter system is perfectly fitting for the demands of protecting minors according to german law. Therefore I think this cannot be the reason.
Question: As a German, I have subscribed to Yahoo Germany, which is (technically) a german company, under german law, that is owned by an american company. So I have a legal agreement/contract with a german company, that allows me to use various services of the mother company and their branches (including Flickr) all across the world. So I have no binding relationship with Flickr directly? Am I right or wrong with this? Anyone?
(Editet for correcting typos)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Spiritus Negator edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
edit: changed my mind :)
(where's the darned delete button?)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Sidereal edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
"I'm from the USA, so this does not appear to be directly affecting me."
I'll say it again: This affects everybody on flickr.
The rest of us are now gagged from communicating freely with those who are blindfolded.
I'm waiting for an explanation from flickr staff.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr.com/terms.gne links to the Flickr Terms Of Service, to which Pro members agree when using the service.
(Edit 4 minutes later:) Hehe, everyone's over reading the TOS! :-)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm from the USA, so this does not appear to be directly affecting me.
that's not true. if you have some "moderate" photos, it affects you: people from Germany won't be able to see your photos.
Some of Flickr "pro"'s best photographers. like Merkley, are very much affected, since most of their photostream is blocked from being viewed in Germany.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mark Howells "Because Yahoo! is essentially a business, not a cause, and it must abide by international law, or face lawsuits and potential closure."
So what's wrong with saying "We feel sorry for our customers, but at the moment we must abide by international law."
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
...blocked from being viewed in Germany, et al.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but at the moment we must abide by international law
they should also point precisely to what german law presumably forces them to do the blocking. and whether it affects austria, too.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Robert_K: Nothing at all, I and many others have been saying that for hours. That actual answer isn't good business sense, because a more concise version of that would be "Tough, that's how it is". I'll say again: I'm sure they're trying to come up with an official statement which will satisfy the whole of German-speaking Europe. (Rather them than me!)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
Well, for those of us without pitchforks in hand, that's what we're waiting to hear.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It surely does affect us in the USA. If some of my images are illegal in Germany, and Flickr wants me to flag them so they can comply with German law, well, that's fine -- but if that's what flagging means now, how about telling us that?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Too bad I dont have time, but tomorrow the 24hours flickr thingy will be held here in Paris. But i would have liked to go and see if they have something to say about it (maybe even wearing a badge with the 'logo' pasted here earlier. Maybe someone has got friends in Paris who are going?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think the point remains. The censorship is bad, no doubt about it, but the protest should be against the governments of the listed countries. Yahoo might be persuaded to stand against it, but that's their choice of course. I wouldn't count on it though. It would undoubtedly cost them more in terms of legal fees, fines and blocked users who are not moderated or restricted than they will gain from allowing the censored content.
Robert_K: Well sure, but what will that prove? It's a nice gesture, but it's unlikely to change the fact that people are being blocked or censored. Again, individual protests to local governments will do more than everyone posting anti-censorship banners on their photostreams or commenting in forums! I will agree that Flickr probably does owe users in the affected countries some explanation as to why they are being singled out. Complete with references to local law, etc. Links to info on local MPs.
A side note. Some people seem to believe that this is the result of the U.S. morals police and not the fault of the countries affected. I dispute this. It's a well known statistic that most of the pornography sites on the internet are hosted on U.S. servers. I suspect that people from other countries get the impression of savagely restrictive pornography laws from our very vocal anti-porn crusaders. However, the legal victories they can claim have been limited, thanks in part to people like Larry Flynt and the ACLU. Porn is just as accessible here as anywhere in Europe. In fact, it might be more accessible.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
kucharo edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
also, flickr should correct the "filter" section of their FAQ.
it current says:
Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
it should say:
Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you. Be aware the users from Germany, HongKong, Singapore and Korea will not have access to "Moderate" photos, regardless of their SafeSearch settings.
also, it says:
Putting your content into these categories means that everyone can then apply filters to searches they do to make sure they're seeing what they want to see.
i think that "everyone" does not include users from Germany, HongKong, Singapore and Korea...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Here's an alternative take. If users are responsible for their own content, and it's broadcast over the internet to an audience which is legally not entitled to see it, then do those people who are complaining so vociferously about Flickr abiding by the law in Germany mind if the restrictions are lifted and they are then prosecuted under international law and prosecuted? Just something else to talk about whilst we're waiting...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Who knows. Maybe it is a bug right? Maybe it was an accident? Maybe they are working hard to fix it right now?
It would be nice if flickr would respond to this now. What the hell are they waiting for? Just tell us what is going on. WTF???
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe it is a bug right?
if it was a bug, it would not be mentionned in the FAQ: www.flickr.com/help/filters/#249
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jerry Yang, Yahoo’s co-founder and “chief Yahoo,” said at the meeting that the company had been actively lobbying the United States government to assist Internet companies in fighting censorship and protecting human rights in countries like China. Yahoo has also been working with academics, nongovernmental organizations and others to create a set of principles to protect freedom of expression, he said.
www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/technology/13yahoo.html?ex=133...
Time to walk the walk...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The "Why Now" is the big one for me. If it's to comply with local laws, why has there been a pass for all this time? Why build and encourage large communities from these places, if the plan and day was always coming where it would all be switched off?
It's just an odd way to roll it out, mixed in with the new languages.
"Welcome to Flickr. You can't see us, but at least you can read us."
[I don't think that's the walk they're walking: "Yahoo Rejects Anti-Censorship Proposal" yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/13/1315230 ]
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
...I guess someone in California is working: I've just seen that although I have my Flickr set to English, the quick edit buttons have turned German!
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's not a bug, but it's also not some nefarious scheme to screw flickr users in Germany. That would be bad business.
For those of you stating unequivocally that flickr (as it was) did not violate any German law, are you lawyers? A member in flickr central pointed out the the original TOS violated EU market laws because it allowed Yahoo to unilaterally (without notice) to change the TOS.
Of course, an answer from staff would be nice.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think we basically need to find what Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea have in common. Its not an arbitrary decision. There is a reason only those four places have this rule while the rest of us don't. Things are confusing as far as laws go in the EU and in Germany these days. Look at the trouble Apple has been having with working out EU laws. Inconsistencies abound. Sometimes EU law trumps national laws, other times not.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
photomaven edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
@kucharo: The protest should be against the government? Why? As everybody from here states, there is no obvious basis for the step yahoo/flickr did. Why should we complain about anything then?
The posts fantasizing about the german gouvernment(!) asking yahoo/flickr to block users because of 3rd reich glorification and other things are just ridiculous.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hmmm, let's see flickr could have proactively announced the new censorship for Germans, et al. and then instead of having all of these anti-flickr censorship banners on photostreams right now we might have anti-government censorship banners in their place. And that's bad for flickr/Yahoo how? Wasn't this used at least somewhat effectively when the UAE's phone company started blocking flickr a while back?
I think we can all agree that an explanation including the justification (with references to local laws, etc.) for this hefty change would be preferred over just an edit to a buried faq. Many Germans posting right now seem convinced it has nothing to do with their laws, I'm hoping flickr will clarify the situation ASAP for these folks.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Fort Photo edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Just as ridiculous that Yahoo thinks it's good business to single out Germany, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea for censorship.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@Mark Howells: The law you linked earlier is obsolete, it wasn't applicable to flickr anyway.
There is a law (the JMStV, www.netlaw.de/gesetze/jmstv.htm) which aims to protect minors from unsuitable content. This law might apply to flickr depending if you consider flickr the provider and responsible party for the content.
If you consider flickr just a site that enables other parties to publish it (after all it is about "user-generated" content) it doesn't apply (directly).
Unsuitable content would be stuff that is forbidden in Germany anyway (such as child pornography, hate speech, etc.) as well as porn, extreme violence and a few other things.
However their current censorship doesn't change their status of complying at all with this law regarding illegal stuff because nowhere it doesn't state explicitly how content should be flagged. E.g. it is more or less coincidence if somebody flags stuff that is illegal in Germany but protected by free speech in the US as moderate or restricted.
To avoid problems with illegal content it would be sufficient to simply filter this content for German users upon being noticed.
The current approach doesn't help them with the restrictions of pornography either because if flickr considers offering porn part of its product they be would be required to only explicitly allow people that are checked to be over 18 access to this. Filtering it for certain users (even if that means all users with german accounts) is not sufficient.
Updated with link to JMStV
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
leistungssurrogat edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
photomaven, that is quite possibly the most logical thing said in this thread so far.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think we basically need to find what Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea have in common. Its not an arbitrary decision. There is a reason only those four places have this rule while the rest of us don't.
maybe germany is now officially a member of "the axis of evil" ;)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
fuck this worthless company and there totalanarian tactics, i say they dont even deserve to be considered a company anymore, they are satanic censorists that need a good kick in the ass, we need to organize street protests in berlin, and make as much noise as possible!
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Under what statute would individual users be prosecuted? There is a lot of talk here about 'International Law' that seems off base.
International law is generally concerned with war crimes, treaties, trade and copyrights, not criminal violations. It is further muddled by the fact that in some countries (Germany) International Law is considered 'above' national law, while in others (US, where flickr is) the reverse is considered the norm; US Law trumps International Law.
See here for a simple primer.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
modulo: and that's quite possibly the least logical thing said in this thread so far. we're on a roll!
photomaven: unfortunately, that's exactly the sort of mystery that would be best solved by a knowledgeable staff person chiming in. Quicker than we could pore over international treaties and business arrangements with Yahoo.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
leistungssurrogat: OK, I hadn't seen that it was obsolete, just that it was old. A link to the current statues would be good here, if you have one.
I understand the need, relevance, and appropriateness of abiding by laws, but I am puzzled as to why similar laws in countries which haven't been censored aren't being respected.
Angry Lawn Gnome: when I've mentioned it, I've been referring to international laws, not International Law. I mean individual countries, not global law which is applicable to all countries. (If there is such a thing.)
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
It looks a bit like:
If your Yahoo! ID is based in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah you will only be able to view safe content based on your local Terms of Service so won’t be able to turn SafeSearch off.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thus my concern over "What's Next"?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"What's Next" i think Utah is next :)
no, seriously, singling out germany and not applying a uniform rule to all of EU seems really a bad idea.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
but I am puzzled as to why similar laws in countries which haven't been censored aren't being respected.
Probably because Yahoo doesn't operate in those countries.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They don't operate in Switzerland either, directly, but Flickr members here are being affected...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
kucharo "Well sure, but what will that prove? It's a nice gesture, but it's unlikely to change the fact that people are being blocked or censored."
The point is that Yahoo/Flickr now keeps silence about this issue. As if they don't care. And that's quite embarrassing when you always pitch yourself as a social community.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher
I Don't care to be logical in a situation like this, it's fools such as yourself who try and fight a giant monster of a company like yahoo with "logic" that get swallowed up into the void of a corporate blackhole. I've seen others attack you on here before, you have a reputation for being an idiot, so i won't say anymore in response to you.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BTW: I noticed that bit on the locations in question in the FAQ has now been Yellow Highlighted.
www.flickr.com/help/filters
baby steps.
modulo: many thanks. Coming from you that's high praise. continue to rant unintelligibly if it's your corporate windmill tilt of choice.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
true, there is a large german-speaking population is switzerland that probably use the german yahoo servers.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They don't operate in Switzerland either, directly, but Swiss Flickr members are being affected...
Swiss users are caught up in the dragnet by virtue of signing up through Yahoo Germany, which is merely a side effect (and an example of why this kind of thing usually turns out worse than you think it will when you throw the switch).
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BTW: I noticed that bit on the locations in question in the FAQ has now been Yellow Highlighted.
indeed, that poped-up in the last hours (or maybe it's my cache).
But they still don'y have a link to the section(s) of the local Terms of Service that are presumably the cause of this blocking.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
It's been yellow highlighted all day, at least since I checked early this morning.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Indeed: the issue which is most affecting Swiss and Austrian users is that they are being blanketed by German law. It's possible that these users agreed to being regulated by German law when signing up. As a Brit here, I signed up through the UK site, so I can see as many tits and bums as I like... for now.... :-)
As to the highlighted text: it does say "...if your Yahoo! ID is based in Germany...", which is why so many users not resident in Germany are being affected too.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
Mark Howells-Mead edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Next.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mark Howell - if you are referring to the relationship between German and American law (for example), when a US poster uploads a photo on any site, he or she is not bound by German law as I understand it (I'm a fan of law, not a lawyer however, so make no guarrentees regarding my opinion, except the fact I will express them!).
I cannot import illegal items into Germany, but the legal status of a web site, as I understand it, is predicated upon the location of the web site. Hence, the many gambling web sites that exist based offshore. They would be illegal (in the US) if hosted here. But they aren't, and the US can't touch them. I fail to see where it's different for flickr.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the workaround for all German users is:
- Create a new yahoo ID with US or UK Yahoo site (not with yahoo.de), so your new yahoo ID will not be "german"
- then tranfer your Flickr account to your new (non-german) yahoo ID, using this page:
www.flickr.com/account/transfer/
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Are we discussing this from a policy perspective? If so, i cannot rant intelligibly as it's nowehre near my field of expertise(nor do i have an interest in something the "human" creates...) but i can say that there are thousands of people right now who are very infuriated at this change that Yahoo has inflicted, policy or not, it stems from the same pathetic anti-objective biased view that censorship is a ethical principle(it is not..).
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but the legal status of a web site, as I understand it, is predicated upon the location of the web site.
although recently germany ordered several of its internet service providers to block neo-nazi websites regarless of the actual location of their servers.
maybe flickr is concerned that the "moderate" or "restristed" photos contain too much pro-nazi propaganda and that flickr could be entirely blocked by the german government?
i think that flickr should not be putting germany and china in the same basket regarding government censorship.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Crazyinthenight-
?
Then people didn't read the original filter thread. It's being done in accordance with local TOS rules. Maybe you should find out what made it necessary to have such restrictive TOS rules for those countries as photomaven so rightly suggests. Flickr should probably have done this, but doesn't seem to have done.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The posts fantasizing about the german gouvernment(!) asking yahoo/flickr to block users because of 3rd reich glorification and other things are just ridiculous. ".
There were previous posts about this here:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/42597/#reply226221
that I was referring to. Perhaps the German government didn't ask specifically, but Yahoo has been sued by the French government over this subject before:
archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/11/yahoo/index.html
That doesn't change the idea that Yahoo has singled out specific countries here. If this was blanket censorship by Yahoo alone, why be so specific?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
its 2pm in San Francisco, there's 259 posts in this thread, and nothing in the blog or news section.
A bit of staff input here might help clear things up.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
loupiote: "geolocation", look it up.
Also, using this workaround means silently approving this absolutely braindead "solution" to whatever legal problem Flickr/Yahoo is hopefully going to cough up soon.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
loupiote: "geolocation", look it up.
then you might have to use some proxies. there are many ways to work around web censorship.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
264 posts and not a single word from Flickr HQ? that's ridiculous.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's the revenge for facing GWB with the G8-Crowd! Hear my words... scnr
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
modulo: "policy or not, it stems from the same pathetic anti-objective biased view that censorship is a ethical principle(it is not..)."
now see, there ya go, You're absolutely right, the reverse should be the ethical principle. However, that's likely not where this stems at all. It likely comes from the other side of the ethical spectrum; commerce. capitolism. greed. Because regardless of Germany's or other countries' moral stances, the issue is, Yahoo going against their own moral position, to be allowed to do business in those places.
From this article on Yahoo's shareholders overwhelmingly voting down an anti-censorship policy: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6747095.stm
"Yahoo insists it must comply with local laws in areas where it operates."
"The internet firms argue it is better to offer Chinese users some information than none at all."
That last one, you know, I learned all the way back in Animal Farm and 1984, is really not true.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
although recently germany ordered several of its internet service providers to block neo-nazi websites regarless of the actual location of their servers.
Yes - this makes sense, I would assume, because the ISPs are located in Germany, or at the very least has some sort of contractual obligation to Germany. The German government has no recourse however, against the actual neo-nazi sites.
Site filtering is as lame a solution as the current flickr filtering furor. Much as flickr users can get a different account to circumnavigate the flickr decision, web content can be translated from text to image to defeat text filtering systems, and IP addresses can be modified or spoofed. If an admin of those sites wants to be visible in Germany, they will be, regardless of what the Bundesrepublik wishes are on the subject .
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think we both know that we'd lose the majority of affected people at "proxies". And it would still mean approval. We're not in China, so we can, and should, make our opinion heard, I think.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
adietrich edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
it's all about solidarity
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
apparently the news is making its way in a number of german blogs:
www.flickr.com/groups/keine_zensur/discuss/72157600350160...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
flickr staff where are you???
i want an official explanation in the forums, the blog and in my mailbox. this is just rude.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, "staff" has just shown up in the other thread, completely oblivious to what's going on...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Which thread?
I don't think they're oblivious to these discussions. I think they're choosing not to comment.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There's no way the staff is choosing not to comment. I'm sure the staff has been told not to comment.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
[Official Topic] Filters
flickr knows, they are just holding the party line. That is quite distressing and reflects poorly upon a company predicted upon community.
But now the furor is in Der Spiegel. Soon it will be on digg, then netscape, and then the mainstream US press. Remaining silent will only escalate the furor, I am somewhat amazed at how badly flickr is handling this issue.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/42597/227150/
Thumbnail censored, probably because it's in a public forum. I still see the original when I click through, though. Someone's watching all this, at least...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Where are we? We're currently sprinkled around the globe to support the our internation launch (I think two continents and a handful airborn coming to Paris). The team has been working flat out on this for weeks and a few have fallen victim the a flu that we've dubbed "the plague." Please don't think that I'm making excuses... I'm not. I hope you'll agree that we're pretty good at being open and honest with the community.
I've just stepped off a plane, having been in transit all day. Let me touch base with Flickr HQ and get back to community.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This one.
That was sarcasm, Marge !
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm sure the staff has been told not to comment
yes, that's quite obvious. they are waiting from the opinion of their legal conseils.
it was a pretty good move to hide the German blocking behing the positive annoucement regarding german localization. but there seem to be more traffic in this thread than in their localization thread. how strange?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
[comment removed mh]
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yes, that's quite obvious. they are waiting from the opinion of their legal conseils.
My point is this: when we hear from them (and now we have in fact heard from Heather) don't take it out on them. I've been in this kind of position and, believe me, they want to say something. It's not their fault.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Whoa, I sense a wild overuse of the C word in this thread. Loupiote - you need to slow those gears down a little - I'm seeing a heck of a lot of hyperbole and speculation on your part. Chill out.
[ flickr.com/help/forum/42597/page3/#reply227236 : I was talking about all the chatter and misinformation. OK, so there's a blocking policy, and WOW you're inflamed and Flickr hasn't responded in five hours, but you're all a bit cheeky for being so stirred up. The problems of nuclear weaponry and child starvation and global warming, etc., are suitable for this level of intensity, passion and activism. Photo sharing, simply is not. All I'm saying, is yes, sure, register a complaint or request or whatever, but put away the torches and pitchforks and anger.]
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
van swearingen edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Staff in "the other thread"...
flickr.com/help/forum/35971/page7/#reply227104
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"We're currently sprinkled around the globe to support the our internation launch "
Will the staff travelling to Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea be wearing concealing veils so that no-one can see them?
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whoa, I sense a wild overuse of the C word in this thread. Loupiote - you need to slow those gears down a little - I'm seeing a heck of a lot of hyperbole and speculation on your part. Chill out.
I use the B-word. "blocking". because technically that's what it is. flickr blocks german users from seeing "moderate" and "restricted" images.
this is not speculation, it is a fact, and we verified it.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Will the staff travelling to Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea be wearing concealing veils so that no-one can see them?
I guess that depends on their rating...
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Maybe now people can stop stamping their feet up and down trying to get attention. Yes, it's a "serious" topic, but a petulant tone will accomplish nothing. It's always sad to see how these things spiral out of control.
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
La moralina de Flickr es una mierda
Posted 14 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
