|
|
Think this people have quite a tough job to do... Must make lot's of fun :)
The evangelicals say its a irksome task, but God has commanded them to do it.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
OK, not a hot topic, everyone go home now.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm really unimpressed that Flickr doesn't even have the guts to issue an official statement, even just "this is how it is, if you don't like it, too bad" instead of just letting it sit there. It really does look like they're just hoping it will go away.
I largely have complete sympathy for the support staff, but whoever's in charge of PR should be fired. At least get the legal crew to stop making really paranoid, reactionary choices that make PR look like it doesn't exist - at least issue a statement.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ flickr staff:
concerning the possible integration of an age-verification process:
Please be aware that solutions like "Postident" are not practicable for non-Germans. In fact the other countries that are touched by this problematic suffer even more injustly: no law from my country would require such mesures from flickr/yahoo, but since place of residence/nationality doesn't count, flickr treats me like a subject to german law. Same thing goes for austrians and swiss etc,..
For these countries a check of CC-adress might be interesting to see if they are from germany or not. Similar procedures should be feasable(dertain german email services transmit your initial password by snailmail so that they have a verified address for each account. Not completely failsafe but I doubt that german minors could get easy access to foreign PO-boxes under their name.
Just offer to send out validation codes by snailmail to those customers that specify another country than germany as place of residence.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, Stewart, it's been a while... how's your evaluating going?
I want to know if I have to clean out my account for when I become not pro, or if I can back go to Flickr-life as usual...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "but since place of residence/nationality doesn't count, flickr treats me like a subject to german law. Same thing goes for austrians and swiss etc,.."
 As has been said many times, there is no reason why Austrian or Swiss account holders have to associate their flickr account with a Yahoo.de ID. If you want to transfer your account to a Yahoo.com ID, you can solve the problem for yourself.
www.flickr.com/account/transfer/
It's slightly counter-intuitive because when you click on the necessary link it takes you to a page that assumes your current ID and asks for your password. But if you click on 'sign in as a different user' this is solved.
As I understand it, the laws that are causing this problem apply to Yahoo.de. If you choose to do business with Yahoo.com and not Yahoo.de you are doing business with a company not subject to those laws and all will be well.
This involves telling no lies as you can select your country of residence from a drop down menu when signing up for a new Yahoo ID.
Here is the post where Stewart advised Austrian and Swiss account holders to do this.
(Psssst: You can also do this if you are German)
[EDIT: added the link to Stewart's earlier post on the subject]
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dave Gorman edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
|
@ Dave Gorman,
this thought just hit me -- I have probably not signed up via the German yahoo, and not with a German email address (not .de) so I probably haven't been hit by the "safe" filter; although I have put in my location as Germany, everything else suggests otherwise
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@A.J. French ... well, as an experiment I created a new yahoo.com account a few days ago. When it asked me where I lived I told it I lived in Germany. I used a legitimate postcode from a family member who lives in Munich.
I transferred my Flickr account over to this new ID in no time at all.
As far as anyone was concerned I was then a Yahoo.com customer who lived in Germany and I had the ability to set my own safesearch settings.
I have since transferred back to my original Yahoo.com ID because I didn't want to actually lie about where I live.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Dave: a work-around ain't no fix. registering with an .com account, telling but switching back to the .de account once a year to pay with my european cc(since people wrote that .com accounts apparently need a US-based CC-not verified) and switching back is a hassle.
If flickr were serious and forthcoming about what they are doing, members signing in with yahoo.de that specify living in another country than Germany should be told clearly what the consequences of signing in there(.de) will be(i.e. actually a crippled account). If using .com is a valid alternative(and will remain so!), then flickr should go public with it(concerning non-germans!!!). why don't they do this? It would be the logical step to take...
furthermore we would then be subject to US-laws or not? This would remove lots of protection other laws offer users(like in Germany where it is illegal to change TOS without the client's agreement-when paypal changed it's TOS, they wrote me an email, explained the changes and asked my if the changes were acceptable or if I would prefer to cancel my account...)
Ain't it funny how much energy is spend on localizations and apparently no-one considers the problems that might arise. Once you are present in many countries, there are many laws that apply to you. I guess some german lawyers in need of contracts advised yahoo to localize for germany too... ;)
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Okay, nevertheless, the filter system has huge holes...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, but people that don't filter responsibly get their account circumscribed, and the reported images get flagged.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"a work-around ain't no fix."
But it is, isn't it? I mean... that's exactly what a workaround is. Besides, you imply it's not an officially recommended course of action... but as the link I've provided shows you... it is. (For Austrian, Swiss users at least.)
Your point about switching back and forth between accounts in order to pay might or might not be true, I can't say. But then you do say you haven't verified this either. It seems unlikely to me. I mean, if you can declare residence in Austria with a yahoo.com account you should be able to pay for things that relate to that account with an Austrian credit card. I would expect difficulties for an account where the credit card is not related to the same post code as the account but not in other situations.
There were some people arguing (incorrectly) that having a yahoo.com ID involved lying and pretending to live in the US... this might have created some confusion over payments because a fake address would inevitably lead to problems in that area.
"If using .com is a valid alternative(and will remain so!), then flickr should go public with it(concerning non-germans!!!). why don't they do this? It would be the logical step to take..."
I've already provided a link to a post from Stewart where he does just that. Isn't that flickr going public with it?
I imagine it is legally difficult for the site to advertise this solution. Here is why I imagine this is the case:
§- There is age-verification on the site but not of the kind recognised by the German legal system.
§- Which means that, as far as the German authorities are concerned, anything you show to German account holders can be seen by minors.
§- Which means that any message you give to German account holders is also, as far as the German legal system is concerned, being given to minors.
§- Which means you can't legally send them a message saying here's how to get to the adult content.
Of course, IANAL and this might be wrong. But it would explain the situation as it stands.
"furthermore we would then be subject to US-laws or not? This would remove lots of protection other laws offer users"
This might well be the case. But you can choose which company you deal with and therefore which laws apply to you.
You can have German laws - better consumer protection but with age-verification standards so tight that you are prevented from seeing the whole of the site.
Or you can have American laws - less consumer protection, but less strict age-verification standards which means the site recognises your adult status and grants you full access.
You can't pick and choose and have Germany's tough consumer protection but not their age-verification.
[EDIT: clarification of my speculative reasons for the site not being able to advertise the change of ID]
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dave Gorman edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
|
But you can choose which company you deal with and therefore which laws apply to you.
are you sure it's that simple? if you were right, it would introduce some certainty into what's largely been an exercise in shadow-boxing for the affected users. it would also restore some sense of choice. which would be nice.
I think the reason why many are baulking at this alternative is that it's not clear whether it is in fact so straightforward, nor whether you're likely to run into some kind of difficulty with yahoo! over it somewhere down the line.
but I suppose only a lawyer could answer the first question, and only a clairvoyant the second...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@  ... I'm genuinely confused as to why people seem so determined not to at least explore the option. What harm could come from trying it?
You don't have to tell any lies and it will either work or not work. If it doesn't work what possible harm could come to you. You set up a Yahoo.com account. That can't be illegal for someone in Germany to do because if it was, Germany wouldn't be on the drop down menu of countries when it came to choosing your country of residence.
You transfer your Flickr account so that it is now associated with your new ID. That can't be against the rules either because if it was there wouldn't be a tool to help you transfer your account ID.
So you take two simple steps, break no rules and find out whether or not the problem is solved.
Instead, every time it is suggested people pile in with speculation as to why they think it won't work. I've seen a few people saying, "But someone else said I'd need a US credit card for that..." but I've not actually heard of an actual case where that problem has actually been encountered... just speculation as to why it might.
There's a post from Stewart in which he suggests it as a course of action for Austrian/Swiss users and still people wonder if it's possible?
While people are busy discussing switching to different photo-sharing sites and examining the options (most of which have stricter guidelines on what can or cannot be uploaded ... or, in other words... more - whisper it - 'censorship') they seem to recoil at the suggestion that the most sensible other service to switch to might be yahoo.com. Maybe it's because they've already decided that Yahoo are the bad guys in all this.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other for Yahoo. I do care one way or the other about Flickr though and given a choice between Unrestricted Flickr, Restricted Flickr or Ipernity I know which one I'd choose and how it affected my interaction with Yahoo would be neither here nor there.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just make a new account and you'll have much time until they catch you again. Anyway it doesn't matter if they catch a certain person, there's always new input from others. It's a never ending game of hide and seek. Only solution: Every picture is moderated by some staff member before anyone can see it...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "Only solution: Every picture is moderated by some staff member before anyone can see it... ."
There were 2,538 photos uploaded in the last minute.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What harm could come from trying it?
I think that's easy enough to answer: people are worried that their accounts may be terminated.
I follow your reasoning as to why it seems obvious that what you're suggesting should be fine, and indeed my account has been set up like that from the start, long before these issues and for entirely different reasons, and so far nothing has exploded. but given how arcane and customer-unfriendly yahoo generally comes across, I think the worry is at least understandable.
and then of course there is the issue that yahoo may suddenly decide to go by users' stated place of residence, rather than the country of their yahoo ID, making the whole exercise pointless. while admittedly you wouldn't really lose anything if this suddenly happened, it does explain why the workaround isn't really satisfactory.
the feeling that yahoo can and will just do whatever they please, without giving users options or even reasons for it, has contributed significantly to the current situation, IMO, and while obviously there will never be a guarantee that that can't happen, some actual clarification that this option is legally straightforward and therefore unlikely to suddenly disappear would help somewhat in addressing that.
that that clarification can't really come from yahoo is another matter.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dave, I think people aren't availing themselves of it because:
It doesn't address the root cause of the issue, Flickr's official position is that users in Germany are not able to access restricted content.
People are still upset that this issue was brought forth in such a non-transparent way.
No one from Flickr has suggested your course of action as proper for Germans.
Some folks may be concerned that this workaround may expose them to legal liability.
Some folks may reasonably expect that such a workaround will be short-lived, that the "loophole" will be closed...and that they will have to "restart" their helpcase.
Ugly things will happen when there is a whiff of censorship in the air...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"I think that's easy enough to answer: people are worried that their accounts may be terminated. "
I simply don't understand why anyone thinks this might happen. There is no reason it would as nobody breaks any rules in doing it.
The only situation I can think of where this might happen would be if a child decided to do it in order to gain access to the adult content and a parent or someone else complained. Their account might be terminated... but not for getting a yahoo.com ID, for lying about their date of birth.
Earlier I gave my guess as to why I think it is impossible for Flickr to tell German account holders about this option directly. If that's right (I know... 'if') then it follows that they are also unable to post anything here confirming that it's right because that leads to the same legal problem.
But if it's wrong there would be nothing to stop them correcting it. If they do step in and correct me, that's fine... that's what forums are for; exploring options, dismissing those that don't work... it's just an idea. But if they don't correct me... well, that leads me to a certain conclusion and we can all do as we please with the information.
In brief:
If it's right, they can't say that it's right.
If it's wrong, they can say that it's wrong.
They haven't said that it's wrong.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks flickr staff for doing your best to make flickr a place to share photos.
sorry to the folks who are having troubles with the new things in place - such is life - things change and not always the way we like them...
hope that you can get back to having fun again!
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I simply don't understand why anyone thinks this might happen.
I don't recall whether you were about much at the time of the great "Switching to Yahoo! IDs" controversy, and I wouldn't recommend trying to find anything in the official topic to anyone. but if you did read it, it contained numerous posts where people complained of arbitrary account deletions by yahoo.
personally, I can't say whether the worry is rational or justified, but I can certainly see where it's coming from.
 also lists valid points.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"it contained numerous posts where people complained of arbitrary account deletions by yahoo."
I cannot imagine Yahoo deleting an account of someone who has not broken the ToS. Setting up a Y.com ID and transferring your Flickr account to that ID does not break the ToS.
"personally, I can't say whether the worry is rational or justified, but I can certainly see where it's coming from."
I can see where it's coming from too. People are upset. And I know why they are upset. But to me they are now characterising Yahoo as an almost cartoon style villain, as a company that does bad things for no good reason but because it enjoys being bad. Painting them as an irrational baddie to me seems irrational itself. Cartoon baddies exist in cartoons, not in real life.
If the poor communication over this has damaged trust to the extent that nobody is now prepared to believe any good can come from it then Flickr/Yahoo will have to live with those consequences.
But if that is the case, I don't really understand why someone who believes that Flickr/Yahoo are just plain bad comes to the forum. It's like saying, "Bearing in mind that I will not believe a word you say, please answer my questions..."
" also lists valid points.
gocarrt and I cross posted. Some of the points listed are similar/identical to those you and I have batted around already shining-example (legal liability/Flickr haven't recommended it) so I've already given my views on those. Of the bits I haven't responded to...
"It doesn't address the root cause of the issue, Flickr's official position is that users in Germany are not able to access restricted content."
I think Flickr's official position is that users in Germany are not able to access restricted content because the German legal system won't allow us to give them access to it ... which is a bit different. The root of the problem is in the gap between what the legal system asks of the site and what the site is currently able to provide. You're right that getting a Y.com account and therefore getting access to the restricted content doesn't get to the root of the problem. But it does get the root of a solution.
"People are still upset that this issue was brought forth in such a non-transparent way."
This might sound glib but I promise you it's not meant that way. I just can't quite fathom how else to express what I don't get about this. I do understand that people are upset. I do understand why they are upset. I do not understand this as an argument against exploring this way round it... "I'm so upset about having access to the restricted content removed from me with no forewarning that I am refusing to spend five minutes doing some stuff that will restore full access to me and my Flickr account." It sounds like a lover's tiff which leads someone to accidentally cut up all their own clothes instead of their partners.
"Some folks may reasonably expect that such a workaround will be short-lived, that the "loophole" will be closed...and that they will have to "restart" their helpcase."
I personally doubt this but I have no way of knowing either way. In any case, seeing as it only takes 5 minutes to do, I'd still take the option to have the extra years/months/weeks/ of access.
Besides, if it's seen as a loophole... who do you think will close it? Yahoo? What's in it for them? Do they want to keep stuff from Germans? Or do they have to? To me, the fact that you see it as a loophole suggests that you accept the German law is at the root of the problem and that this isn't just some arbitrary decision by Flickr made out of spite.
"Ugly things will happen when there is a whiff of censorship in the air... "
Which is why bandying the word around so freely and using it to describe actions to which it really shouldn't apply is so unhelpful. It's in the air, not because it's happening but because it keeps being shouted about.
If Yahoo want to keep this content from people in Germany why do they want people in America to see it? If they want to "clean" the site up, why is content that wouldn't have been allowed before the filters now allowed? None of this makes sense to me.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dave,
I do not doubt Flickr's statement that the German law is the root cause.
And I do appreciate your position that your suggested work-around can restore access, at least on an interim basis.
I do ask, however, that you try to understand that some impacted people may not share your exact viewpoints on the points you've made, either rationally or irrationally.
That is what this unspoken whiff has lead us to. And that is the conundrum Flickr finds themselves in.
Unintended consequences or not.
Stewart personally picked this direction because it was the least damaging disaster of several options on his plate. That does not minimize the scope of the problem.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Fear is the root cause.
If a stricter age verification system is found, will it be used in other countries? Will the US be next? Even if a tighter age verification system is found it will not ensure that a child will not happen across improperly flagged content. I feel it is not about the children. Protecting children is a handy cause and not one most of us are willing to dispute.
I feel any solution will be the first step in a trend toward controlling individual expression on the web in general, and on yahoo sites in particular.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Dave: why couldn't yahoo point out: "attention non german residents: be aware that by using a .de account you will have limited access to yahoo/flickr services. We are sorry for the inconvenience. A .com account might be more suitable for you... . We guarantee that all services will then be available to etc...".
THAT would be a confidence building step. Be clear. Be straight. Don't hide from truth.
Such a message could never be interpreted as against a law. It is clearly adressed to non-germans and no law specifies that you have to actively hide such a message from a certain part of users.
Of course it might reduce the number of sign-ups on .de which would reflect badly on some decision-makers who promoted localization before.This might be the only reason why noone publicly(!!) announced this solution. those who might,(yahoo .de) have something to loose for their personal future.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
something new? i mean flickr-essentials in terms of the censorship.
here an interesting article, unfortunately in german:
www.maerkischeallgemeine.de/cms/beitrag/10963332/485072/
it says that www.ipernity.com/ gets 700 new members each day and that the memberships at www.23hq.com has increased about 2000 percent, since the flickr/yahoo desaster has started.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Such a message could never be interpreted as against a law.
why not? the message would appear on the .de site, to all .de users, counseling minors on how to circumvent the filter.
certainly goes against the spirit of the law, which seems to be keeping the .de TLD a porn free wonderland for the german youth.
and why attempt to "code around" a law, when the real solution is fixing the law?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
moonlit glow "sorry to the folks who are having troubles with the new things in place - such is life - things change and not always the way we like them..."
The Pol Pot regime in Cambodia made some changes when they began the wholesale murder of the nation's intelligentsia. Oh well, such is life. Things change and not always the way we like them...
To compare Flickr with Pol Pot is ridiculous, and that's not what I'm doing. My point is that there are some changes that are unacceptable, and this is an example of one such change. To state "such is life" demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the significance of the issue.
Meanwhile, Stewart has stated that they are working on the problem, so I'm willing to wait and see what happens.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and by "fix the law" i mean either:
a] scrapping it completely and actually have parents, you know, monitor their kids' online activity.
or
b] making the verification electronic and immediate, so that it is faster than simply signing up for an international account, instead of weeks slower. it should be as easy as entering a verification number.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@all (especially dave): gocarrt is quite right.
i just can speak for myself here. personally i really don't care whether i can access restricted photos or not (there are maybe some good ones inbetween them, but who knows). moderate is another story (still there aren't many i really like, but some more).
so it's not about this or that workaround, but it's about the way you want to treat your members. do you want to divide them by birth (no matter if there's a workaround) or do you want to treat them all the same?
i came to believe that there are (really) some legal restrictions in germany, which make it hard to provide the same service here (and i'm only talking about german legal stuff, cause i'm german, but of course the same issue is true for the other countries which are treated differently) than anywhere else in the world.
can you take the same money for a different service?
can you change the level of service without prior announcement?
and most of all: do you want to treat your members like children (not in the sense to restrict them from viewing certain photos, but in the sense
of not discussing this with them before)?
for me, it still is the lack of communication, that is the most annoying part about all this (though it's gotten better, thanks mainly to eric, but also to stewart, who finally started talking to us).
that's the reason, why i still read here. i don't care about boobies!
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
actually i do care about boobies, but not on flickr. ;)
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
do you want to divide them by birth (no matter if there's a workaround) or do you want to treat them all the same?
and what if they divide themselves, by virtue of nonsensical legal restrictions?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"a" looks like a good solution.
What if this issue drawing attention to the german law results in the US and other countries bringing in stricter age verification laws?
I feel that Yahoo should be trying to prove how impossible it is to enforce those laws.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
imomus.livejournal.com/296116.html
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
moonlit glow says:
hope that you can get back to having fun again!
sorry, but i'm afraid that will not work. the lack of communication and the tacit assumption of the flickr-stuff (stewart included) there's no reason to talk about the clandestine implemented filters feeds my doubts, that this isn't a place to have fun - it seems to turn out into a place where you've to be skeptical.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can't imagine we'll see too much of Stewart in here...
Stewart says:
...your question is a good example of why responding in here is fairly pointless...
flickr.com/help/forum/43626/page21/#reply249574
RIP Web 2.0, Long Live Web 2.0
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wollt ihr uns alle wirklich nur verarschen?
Ich bin zahlender Kunde und dann bekomme ich einerseits KEINE Antworten auf meine Anfragen, nicht mal l*** m*** und dann beschwert ihr euch, dass die Leutchen mal ein wenig heftig werden.
Also bitte kommt in die Realität zurück. Ich will nun wirklich innerhalb der nächsten beiden Wochen, das ist bis zum 13.7.2007 entweder eine zufriendstellende Antwort, oder mein Geld zurück. Andernfalls werde ich alles unternehmen, was euch schadet, sozusagen als Wiedergutmachung!
August
real name, no fake
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I feel that Yahoo should be trying to prove how impossible it is to enforce those laws.
well, they sort of are, since there are many workarounds and they don't seem to be implementing age verification as the law intends.
which is to say that yahoo's actions demonstrate what an act of futility this truly is.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pretty passive trying there, Stiatic...
Why do they leave it to users like you to state their position?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@striatic:
I have to disagree. A practical example: I live in Luxembourg. there is no yahoo.lu. Since my first foreign language is german, it is only natural that I'll visit yahoo.de first. IMHO it would be legit if yahoo would correctly inform me that I'll get a crippled service when signing up there. (at least after I entered my location/nationality).Nothing illegal with that:the message is directed at me. And the message to germans is clear: your laws forced this upon you: change'em! That is what this discussion is about: honesty and trust. It seems to me that not much is left of it. Users leave, the story keeps on spreading... Some years ago, I distrusted yahoo and turned away from them. After they bought(read "assimilated") flickr, I thought:"lets give them a chance. they seem to have better judgment now(in recognizing the value of flickr) but Iamseriously starting to doubt. the lack of reaction says it all.
In a certain sense I'm glad that my gut was rightfromthe beginning and right now it tells me that manyblind followers of flickr statements will come to understand our point of view... once they are touched by a decision. I have yet to hear someone taking flickrs side that is directly touched by this. apparently people with full access seem to have a problem to understand germanys problems. Might be intersting if the next flickrbug would apply this to the rest of the world...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Dave Gorman:
"There were 2,538 photos uploaded in the last minute. "
Of course I know, but it would be the only safe solution to catch anything which is not allowed. The method now has large holes, some are lucky, some are not. That's not fair...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
IMHO it would be legit if yahoo would correctly inform me that I'll get a crippled service when signing up there.
well, then the tip on getting around the german law would be on the german site, and the german site would be helping german minors find porn.
i'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it is against the spirit of the law to me... if not the letter.
i don't think coding around a law is the answer. i don't think loopholes are the answer. i think changing the law, which serves as a strong impediment to free speech, ought to be the answer.
there are two ways to fix the law:
1] trash the law completely and trust parents to guide their children's internet usage.
2] make it as easy to verify age as it is to verify a credit card, so that age verification is easier than using international sites.
otherwise, you're putting an unnecessarily useless burden on the publisher that gets in the way of free speech.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@striatic: Pease accept that what happens here has little to nothing to do with (German) law. It has also little to do with that we Germans are not longer able to see some material which we were rarely after.
It rather has something to do with the issue that we were part of a community which we were trusting. And we have invested hours and hours into creating content for this community and bulid up our little social network within that community. And now the enterprise running the platform of this community changes the rules in a certain way without proper communication.
There are two issues:
Firstly, we Germans (at least parts of them) had censorship and disposal until quite recently. And all uf us (or our parents and grandparents, as in my case) had it some 70 years ago. This might be the reason why we dislike being censored, even when it does not really apply to us as an individual.
Secondly, I have to come back to trust. I will be honest: Web 2.0 in the sense of community provided content I have taken for granted once it was there: Contribute to Wikipedia, add restaurant critiques somewhere, share photos, comment in forums whatever. I have selected a community whichI did like and then investend some part of me and received back very much in several cases (in the case of flickr, in fact, I am so touched by what is going on now that I am sitting here at 2:48 local time and write this). I have focused on the community always and assumed that the provider of the platform will do everything to keep this community going - optimistic approach. Now the flickr platform, at the very moment supporting the community I felt at home the most, is going into direction of issue 1, which I simply cannot accept. So now the provider is disappointing me, but I cannot simply convert to somewhere else as with a food shop, because of the community.
I had to take a hard decision for myself.
And because it is so hard for me to (hopefully only temporarily) suspend from my beloved community I find it even more depressing when the point is lost in a thread more than 2000 replies long. It is not dealing with technical issues, it is not dealing with law - regardles whether some want to move attention into this direction - it is dealing with trust that a platform provider will care for his communit rather than act against parts of them.
Frustrated that some do not see and even more frustrated that the flickr staff is amongst them, but hoping to make it absolutely clear what the point is,
M.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Mainzelmann I have read what you wrote, and understand it, I think. I am curious to hear whether you think flickr did this out of some arbitrary whim, or whether you think they would have had some reason to do it?
If the first, why?
If the second, what do you think that reason might be?
This is not directed at you, but at this thread in general. It seems to me that many people have a very narrow view of what the "community" is. They seem to think that this community is a thing that provides them with services. There is no concept of the community being a two (in fact multi) way entity. When I became aware of this problem my reaction was "I wonder why flickr did this?" The reaction of many other people seems to be "flickr are a bunch of bastards and they must be punished."
As time has gone on, it has become reasonably clear to me that flickr had good reason to do what they did, given the tools they had at hand. It has also become reasonably clear to me that, for a lot of people, once the C word appears (whether justifiably or not) rationality disappears.
If this was a true community, of which flickr staff are part, there should have been a period of exploration of issues. If I was on the wrong end of the insane tirade that has been tipped on staff, and particularly Stewart , here I would have thrown up my hands in despairing frustration long ago. So, I think, would all of us. Too many people have forgotten that Stewart and the staff are both human beings and part of the community. People have made demands on flickr staff without making allowances for the position in which they are. This is not how a civilised community behaves, and the fault has not been the staff's.
I am not saying that my reaction is right or wrong (although I do think it was rational). What I am saying is that the damage to the "community" lies far more at the feet of the people who were not prepared to cut flickr any slack and even more at the feet of those people who have perpetuated the brouhaha.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "If this was a true community, of which flickr staff are part, there should have been a period of exploration of issues."
I agree. I also agree that staff has been subject to a ridiculous amount of personal attacks.
But, I ask you, who should have kicked off this "period of exploration of issues", staff (say, while planning to implement the changes) or users at large (after having it sprung on them)?
"What I am saying is that the damage to the "community" lies far more at the feet of the people who were not prepared to cut flickr any slack and even more at the feet of those people who have perpetuated the brouhaha."
Here, we disagree. The damage to 'the community' was done when staff decided to treat that community as a mass of passive consumers.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Putting the emphasis on an issue that has been neglected in this thread for a while (instead the usual "change your local laws" pops up again and again), the question needs to be asked again:
Why was such a remarkable change of service not announced? Why had users to find out for themselves (and think it is a bug first), why did the whole thing never appear as a sticky note (like so much other less important stuff) and why did it never make its way into the blog? Why was it hidden in a small change of the FAQ without notice?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly If the first question was "Why?" instead of an assertion of censorship things may have been much better.
Oddly enough, I see the reaction of the mob as asking to be treated like mindless consumers. There was an immediate switch to an "I have paid for this service and I want..." approach to the problem. That is acting as a customer or a consumer, not as a member of a community.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, asking why rather than screaming censorship would have been a better reaction, but you're dodging my question, "Who should have kicked off this "period of exploration of issues", staff or users at large?" Otherwise stated, "Was it prudent of staff to rely on a reasonable reaction rather than being proactive themselves?" I've treated this as a serious issue and haven't been one of those accusing you of being an under-bridge-dweller; I would appreciate a serious response, thank you.
So far as the initial actions of the staff are concerned, it matters not whether users at large are considered 'a community' or 'a mass of consumers'. Conceived of one way, staff failed to respect the need to communicate effectively; conceived of the other, they failed to respect (by selectively, and in a self-serving manner reading) their contract with specific consumers.
These changes were planned far in advance of implementation. There were internal debates. flickrhoo had every opportunity to get out in front of this, and utterly failed to do so... not for the first time. That suggests a systematic failure within flickrhoo.
edit: grammar
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
Jaboney edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
|
So the nine million Flickr users fucked this up? I'll bet Stewart et al would not take that position, not even privately...
He said it was the best of several disaster on his plate...clearly the response should have been expected.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly I'm not dodging any question. "The community" should have done it, in a communal way from the fundamental assumption that there is likely to be a rational explanation. Your question demonstrates that you see this place in terms of customer/supplier. Maybe flickr should have done it differently. Maybe the mob should have reacted differently. Maybe (and most likely) there should have been a combination of those things.
What happened was not the reaction of a community. It was disgusting to watch. But to my mind that reaction demonstrates that, for all their fine words and bullshit, the people claiming that there had been a breakdown of the community were outside that community from the beginning.
gocarrt Not 9,000,000. I think about 90.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So you reject statements from flickr staff that mistakes were made? Right, then.
btw, you've misread my question and reading of the situation.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly How on earth did you get to there from here?
Of course mistakes were made by flickr. Do you think that the response was a model of sane and rational discourse? Or, as I originally stated, does your concept of community involve someone else giving and you taking?
If you are going to complain of a decline in a community you have to assume that everyone in the community has communal obligations to all other members.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Mainzelmann Thanks for your time writing this. This is, what I am feeling about the situation, too.
And I guess your decision to stop contributing, until filtering, censorship or whatever flickrhoo likes to call it, is in place, is the right one.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I got there reading your responses. To the question, staff or community, you persistently wrote of the worst aspects of the reaction. Nary a word about the staff's chosen course of action.
To anyone who has read my previous posts on the issue, my views on what an online collaborative community can be, ought to be clear, and your suggestion "does your concept of community involve someone else giving and you taking?" will not put you in a good light. So much for assuming the best, eh iansand?
"If you are going to complain of a decline in a community you have to assume that everyone in the community has communal obligations to all other members."
Nonsense. No community runs so smoothly that every member honours each and every obligation. Many members are apathetic, or merely disinterested in governance. There are, however, key members in any community. Here, in this regard, it's the leadership: the staff. And they bear primary responsibility for the break down.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly OK. It was all Staff's fault. The customers (and I use the word deliberately) have nothing to answer for. Some "community".
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All staff's fault? I said primarily. And since the changes originated there, and were implemented from there without warning, or consultation, or much communication after the fact, it would be exceedingly difficult to put forward an effective counter argument.
Now, if you want to discuss the character of the reaction, that's another story. A secondary story. Not a happy one, but one which need not have been written had it not been for what came before.
That's not a denigration of community; that's a recognition of who is primarily responsible, and for what.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How can you isolate "the reaction"? That's what I'm talking about.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
TheMainzelmann: I totally agree!
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Causes precede effects. An adequate account of the first must precede any adequate account of the later.
Yes, people acted irrationally, emotionally: like they were pissed off and betrayed. Why is that?
First things first, iansand. First things first.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In my opinion, it can be argued that a possible answer to both:
Jaboney: gadfly “…But, I ask you, who should have kicked off this "period of exploration of issues", staff (say, while planning to implement the changes) or users at large (after having it sprung on them)?...”
Limone “…Why was such a remarkable change of service not announced? Why had users to find out for themselves (and think it is a bug first), why did the whole thing never appear as a sticky note (like so much other less important stuff) and why did it never make its way into the blog? Why was it hidden in a small change of the FAQ without notice?...”
Lies within the so call Web2.0 design of Flickr. The working model needs a mass of users, so the sharing of the content (i.e. photographs, comments, favs, etc) has some meaning. And the way the mass of users is created is by a community within Flickr. I think that deep inside the conception of Flickr, the community is a by product of the working model.
In this sense (pardon the cheesy example) we have two living organisms: On one side the inner workings of Flickr (hardware/software/staff) and on the other side a community (an organism form by millions of cells, with many different functions and behaviors). Both organisms have different characteristics, different evolutive paths, but they live in a symbiotic equilibrium.
I think that it’s very unlikely that Flickr had imagined, before this problem, that it’s intertwined with such dynamic and reactive community. That’s why they didn’t do any proving in the community before the changes. And that’s why the communication was so bad afterward. They simply were way off base in this problem.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly Bizarre. This reminds me of a couple of 5 year olds saying "You started it." Who cares who did what wrong first? You are still playing the ridiculous blame game.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 gmg_660: I agree. I've found that at the heart of my disagreements with Stewart's explanations is a fundamental difference in understanding the nature of these partnerships.
The blame game may be ridiculous in one-off situations. In cases of systematic failure, getting to the root is essential to ensuring future success. It's about responsibility and correction, not blame and shame.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly And you want a "community". In my experience the best way to avoid that is to take an entrenched positions requiring someone else to do what you want.
But I think I have solved it. I have sent a flickrmail to Stewart asking him when he will commit seppuku online. Once he has done that we can all move on.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, you're either not reading, or you're into it what you wish. You see, I wrote; "It's about responsibility and correction, not blame and shame," and you came back with seppuku.
wikipedia: Seppuku was a key part of bushido, the code of the samurai warriors; it was used by warriors to avoid falling into enemy hands, and to attenuate shame.
Care to square that circle?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jaboney: gadfly Are you telling me that you seriously believe that Stewart and the staff have not accepted as much responsibility for this as is appropriate (because I still think that the fundamental problem is probably German law) and have not learned lessons?
What do you want? How should they inform you that they have fulfilled your standards for "responsibility and correction"? Or do you want to keep flogging this?
I think online seppuku is what you do want.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Do you deliberately misread or assume the worst? "It's about responsibility and correction...." I do not believe that they have corrected the underlying causes behind this, which is not German law, but communication with the community concerning the actions taken to comply with their reading of those laws.
I've written, time and again, what I want. Flip back read those posts.
"I think online seppuku is what you do want."
See, that's why you get called a troll.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good to see this thead reanimated. It was already gone to page two in the forum...
iansand:
I have no idea why it was done.
I also did everything to make clear not to flame anyone.
I am far from adding (conspiracy or other) conjectures because I think this makes things worse.
And, to be honest, it is not of the slightest interest for me, why it happened...
I rather sadly took action for myself. As you will read from my picture posting I did not breakup directly but I will allow flickr as long as they need to find a reasonable solution. If, on the other hand, they take too long it may well be that I found it nice and warm somewhere else... But this is not really intended at the present stage.
But when I had to read repeatedly that the little online demonstration here systematically leaves the path of what the issue really is about I had to enter this statement. I again do not know whether those who show the fen fire do it intentionally or because they did not get the point. But to be of impact we have to stay on the main road.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand What do you want?
Information before things like this happen with a reasonable time to react would have been a good start at all.
But the only thing I want at the moment is the complete rollback of the localized version (in fact the german) in order to disable all (!) filtering for any specific user group.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
we are fortunate that flickr has an open forum for discussion much less that the staff come on and give answer to us. some people are so disrespectful and demanding that it is quite frustrating to see, frankly.
as I've shared before, I wish that this change effected all of the flickr community. this is NO PLACE for porn material. even the artful nudes tend to get annoying... but only because they seem to have a *look at me* feeling about them.
sorry if this offends anybody... they are my thoughts though.
hope y'all are remembering to enjoy your lives away from this website... life is short, take time to enjoy your surroundings.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
moonlit glow: Please note that the whole approach with the filter does not implement your intention to keep flickr porn-free. And please accept that we, who do not like to be censored, are not necessarily hanging out in the Schmuddelecke (check out this in case you are interested what is really moving me). In case flickr takes meaningful and targeted action against porn, I guess most of us will be with them.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand: There was an immediate switch to an "I have paid for this service and I want..." approach to the problem. That is acting as a customer or a consumer, not as a member of a community.
Hold on! I have paid flickr for the service provision, i.e. storage and running the software, so to make the community technically available to me. I have not paied flickr or anyone for the content or the community itself. Those both things are mixed up in Web2.0 times, mainly because the community site operator has the ability to break the community due to the lack of open standards. No, a hoster like flickr should understand itself more like a carrier together with a housekeeping component to make sure fair use of the medium.
The difference with e.g. my DSL provider and our janitor is that I have the power to change to another provider or fire the janitor should they not provide good service for the money without loosing my friends over that. But because of the lack of open standards I will loose part of my network when I quit flickr. And after all this is the main reason why I am still here. Not the 25 bucks I have paid...
So no, I feel as a community member to you guys and yes, I feel as a customer to flickr.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand: I've read your posts carefully over the past few weeks, and I still really can't understand your motivation or reasoning for being such a staff apologist. What you claim to be doing, and what you advocate all members do, is stepping back, thinking the issues through, and deciding rationally whether there was any wrongdoing, rather than reacting impulsively and immediately to something unpleasant. Sounds reasonable. Perhaps you're right in that many members have indeed reacted emotionally, and have impulsively blamed flickr staff, without really thinking the issue through.
However, I don't see the evidence that you've rationally thought through the issues. Instead, I see an instictive reaction on your part, to bend over backwards and spin any possibility or doubt in the direction of no wrongdoing by flickr staff, and truly ignoring so much evidence to the contrary.
Here's my take on the issue, which I believe is the rational reaction to all the evidence that's been presented:
flickr made a very unpopular and unannounced change/reduction to their level of service for many users. Obviously, they didn't do this out of whim, or any evil personal desire to punish, restrict, or censor any users. Obviously, they did it because certain people on flickr staff or yahoo corporate honestly believed it was legally necessary. Also, the legal issue is rather complex, and not amenable to an instant and undebatable right-or-wrong analysis.
So the above means that there's no grounds for being upset with flickr staff, right? Wrong. Because there are additional facts that give all affected (or even in my case, non-affected) members ample reason to be upset: Namely, (a) the manner in which flickr instituted, and then reacted to, the change, is unprofessional, unfair, and incredibly disprespectful to loyal paying users, and (b) there is ample evidence that the move was not legally necessary in the first place.
I don't want to thoroughly reiterate what's been discussed dozens of times here already to support these 2 claims, but I will summarise.
(a) It's not acceptable that flickr instituted this reduction in service with no prior announcement; that they still haven't even acknowledged the issue of refunds to restricted users; that they explicitly refuse to provide even a brief explanation of their legal reasoning behind it; that they've provided no explanation for why they chose to reduce some nationalities' viewing freedom in exchange for language support (Stewart's first post admitted that the issue was indeed a matter of choice to them, and that they chose to "include" [restrict] Germany); and that they've still provided no explanation at all for why they instituted the restrictions without notice.
(b) All evidence points to the fact that this restriction is not not in fact legally necessary, but is instead a lazy CYA decision by yahoo's legal staff. Again, just to summarise: no other German-accessible internet service is implementing a similar filtering; Germans for years have been using flickr without special restrictions; the restrictions were imposed only when the German language support was implemented; however the restrictions are not enacted based on language selection, or even on place of residence, but [currently] based on signing up with the .de domain; the filtering uses flickr's existing categorisation system, which both restricts many images that are fully allowable to German youth, and allows many that are not; plenty of German legal experts have publicly stated that flickr's policy is the wrong approach, and not legally necessary or sufficient.
In short, I re-state that the reasonable interpretation of flickr's actions is that they screwed over their users, in the interests of or via pressure from their corporate lawyers, that it was due to lawyerly convenience and CYA policy rather than necessity, and that they did so in a cowardly way, that they still have not acknowledged or shown any sign of making up for.
That's why I'm upset. Perhaps the reasons so many others here are upset are similar. What I can't understand is why you, ian, are not upset.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
Bonemesh edited this topic 60 months ago.
|
|
|
Well written Bonemesh
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good. Bygones be bygones. Water under the bridge. flickr can't undo those things. What should they do now? Living in the past and making demands that cannot be fulfilled retrospectively means , to me, a desire for punishment.
It also means that the relationship between members of the community- staff and us - is likely to be altered because of the horror that staff have been put through. It can't have been fun. The change will not be for the better.
Bonemesh >>Gegen Zensur<< I have dealt with your (b) so many times that I won't do it again. You are wrong. Even if you are right, how will this improve matters, which is what I am sure we all want.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand:
"I have dealt with your (b) so many times that I won't do it again. You are wrong."
It is surprising that you claim to know the German law better than Germans themself. From my understanding Bonemesh is indeed right when he says "[the current 'solution' is] not legally necessary or sufficient." (I am quite sure that I have followed the German legal landscape much longer and more deitailed than you have.)
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks Bonemesh!
btw: (b) is essentially correct. guess it takes someone who has followed german laws for more than 2 weeks and who did more than google for information/ altavistatranslate laws and their interpretation.... to see how the real legal situation is. Quite funny how a newcomer to the german market like flickr is the first that creates such a fuss about german laws, considering they are represented in germany by an law firm... which will get paid lots of €'s to look into this problem... a problem they are the first and only to see this way. nice way to make a living... (not flickr/yahoo bashing...but just looking at who wins money by this...)
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It is surprising that you claim to know the German law better than Germans themself.
Well its been quite clear for a long time that the German users don't understand the implication of there laws at all.
You have these laws, you live by them, and don't try imposing them on others. Comprehend?
Now some days ago I gave you an outline of how you could fix the fuck up. So stop whining like a whipped puppy and go do it!
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/43626/248406/
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The "solution" proposed by German bush lawyers is that flickr delete the images that may offend if viewed by minors. To impose German standards of censorship for minors on the whole of the rest of the world. They may find that reasonable. I think it is the funniest, most self indulgent thing I have read for years.
Now - the topic in hand. What should flickr do now? How do we all restore this community that appears to have been destroyed? This appears to be much more difficult than attacking the messenger.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it is the funniest, most self indulgent thing I have read for years.
What would have Andreas and Ulrike have thought of them?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand: How many time to I have to repeat that nobody demands photos which are illegal to display in Germany to be removed from the whole world?! The illegal material needs just to be made inaccessible to Germany. Iansand, can you comprehend the difference?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Walwyn:
"You have these laws, you live by them, and don't try imposing them on others. Comprehend?"
Do you understand that the German law applies to a company which operates in Germany?! Can you understand this simple fact?
Then, after you have understand this simple fact, can you then follow that material which is illegal to display to people in Germany has to be made inaccessible to the people in Germany? Can you follow this simple conlcusion?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
follow that material which is illegal to display to people in Germany has to be made inaccessible to the people in Germany?
And so it is. Now what was your complaint?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yep, the filter keeps away a lot of material. But I am sure that there is material around which is not marked restricted but still illegal to show. That needs to be made inaccessible upon notification (in case the notification is justified). Do you agree on that?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mfluch But flickr is doing the best it can with imperfect instruments. If they are notified flickr will mark them restricted. That was easy.
Now. What would you do to restore the community?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think the community is quite ok...
At least, after I got over myself with the dissapointment and anger about flickr/yahoos CYA action I just noticed that it is still a great site for sharing photos and the people around here are still very nice in general. So in principle nothing big did change from the point of view of community and sharing photos.
Taking a big breath and trying to relax can help a lot to feel again well... :-)
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mfluch No no no no no. The community she is broken.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That needs to be made inaccessible upon notification (in case the notification is justified).
They'll mark it 'restricted' if it gets reported as miss flagged. Actually you are in an excellent position to join that dedicated band of flickrite censors that search out all that miss flagged stuff and report it.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think so. The vaste majority of people keep sharing hapily photos. How many members does flickr have? A lot. And how many of them them are posting actively here on this threat? For sure the latter number is bounded by ... say 2188. This is a tiny fraction of the total amount of members.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mfluch You are beginning to find wisdom.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@walwyn:
"They'll mark it 'restricted' if it gets reported as miss flagged."
If one flags all photos which should not be displayed in Germany upon notification as restricted, then this works. I agree on that.
Now the next question: how about giving back the people from Germany the possibility to disable safe-search completely and on the same time adding a "not-to-be-displayed-in-Germany" flag which is set upon (justified) notification?
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@walwyn:
Actually you are in an excellent position to join that dedicated band of flickrite censors that search out all that miss flagged stuff and report it.
Were did I ever give this impression? Honestly, I have much better things to do than to vaste my time to find such material. I couldn't care less most of such images (that is, in most cases, for sure I would report really bad stuff like for example child pronography in case I stumble on it...).
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@island: please point out where I said ever something different... I don't think that my atitude changed a lot (except that I got used to the CYA action of flickr/yahoo).
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@mfluch: your last proposal is the only sensible way out.
Google have taken the same step: if german authorities alert them to a search result that is illegal in germany, it's gets a special internal tag and is removed only from german searches. Only those images that authorities alert you on have to be removed. these images don't have to be flagged as restricted, otherwise all swastikas would be flagged that way...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@notruemeaning: I couldn't agree more to your statement.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the possibility to disable safe-search completely and on the same time adding a "not-to-be-displayed-in-Germany"
Perhaps that is what they are working on, perhaps it is age-verification. The problem with the extra flag though is that it is an open door. You get flags for not in Iran, not in Burma, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Chetnya, ...
In addition I'm pretty sure that a check against extra flags based on country of origin is not cost free. IOW such a system will slow down access.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
.... considering they are represented in germany by an law firm... which will get paid lots of €'s to look into this problem ....
there is a chance that this law firm is as pissed off as we are:
Remarks: Domainregistration HostEurope GmbH
Changed: 2002-11-20T14:17:01+01:00
looking at the domain holder's name 'Flick', this guy might have registered flickR with R for Rechtsanwalt (attorney) back in 2002 as flick.de was probably already gone. Noboby was even dreaming of flickr.com at that time.
He will surely get lots of money for lending the name, but pays a high price for being involved in an issue his company are experts for but supposedly not asked for advice. Actually, I cannot imagine, that an office like described in his website would forget such basic things like imprint and AGB. Which does not mean I pity them ...
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mfluch, walwyn:
A country-based flagging system might do for legal issues but I don't think it wouldn't fit all the needs to be fulfilled, since cultural issues don't stop at country borders. therefore I keep recommending a content descriptive solution.
But anyhow, Stewart alread stated that he doesn't think that "a more complicated filter system can work" because he believes that many members wont flag images correctly if there are such a lot of possible choices.
So I'd say it is pointless to keep on discussing that endlessly.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think Stewart is right on that. The broad bands what we have are good enough.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<°)))><
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
greynine When I read the first linked post a while ago I thought I was reading satire. As Stewart said, in the second link, the more choices you give the less effective filtering becomes. I think he is right.
Posted 60 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads