|
Just speculation, but maybe it's because it's illegal for anyone under 18 to smoke in the US (where the flickr office is located)?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Impossible to offer an opinion without seeing the image in question.
And definition of "banned" would be helpful - image deleted, set to "Restricted" by staff?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's also illegal to put squirrels into your pants for the purpose of gambling, and we're allowed to post those pictures-- I mean, there's a whole group dedicated to it!
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakerome - well... I... can't think of anything to say to that. :O
edit: And yeah, ososment - Dr. Keats is right. You're not really giving any information here.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
definition of "banned": in this case = image deleted by staff.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
There are plenty of pictures of children smoking on Flickr, so what are you talking about?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Someone had their picture deleted by Flickr staff, and a Yahoo! prohibition against pictures showing children smoking was cited as the reason. It was pretty clear-cut.
Either this is Flickr's policy or they screwed up.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whose photo was it? It seems all we have is a bunch of hearsay at this point.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The photographer will step forward if the photographer wishes to step forward. The Flickr mail said, Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties.
I've gone ahead and deleted the image from your photostream.
We appreciate your understanding.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ahhhh...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dr. Keats edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
Of course, it was completely unjust to remove since the kid in question was smoking pot, so it's even worse than it first appears.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Minors drinking and smoking are prohibited as they are a no no, have been i think since forever. If it's brought to our attention via Report Abuse, etc., we will review and take action. In this instance it resulted in the removal of a photo from the photostream.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The image of a crime is not a crime.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
heather Does that mean we are all under the restrictions of American law with regards to age limits....
Here in the UK it is 16 for smoking & 18 for alcohol.... both lower ages than in the US
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
true, the image of a crime (or in this case: pretend crime) is not a crime. that's why "set to restricted" would be an acceptable compromise imho.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No it's not, but we as a team can decide if this is something that we want to see on the site, hence the use of "prohibited" vs. illegal.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Linus Gelber The image of a crime is not a crime.
That really depends on the crime
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, does Flickr have a list of other types of images that violate Yahoo!/Flickr rules and will be deleted if reported?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Yahoo!/Flickr, you guys are fucking disgusting. Photography is inherently reportage and limiting what subjects are allowed on your property means that this place is nothing but kittens and sunsets, as you've been accused of before and denied (by way of humour.) What's next?
Do you morons somehow think that prohibiting certain images is going to make the event itself disappear?
Get the pole out of your ass, for fuck's sake.
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Pierre, you seriously need to dial it back or you'll have a time out from the forum on the naughty mat.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's unbelievable: this censors entire aspects of human culture globe wide. Not to mention censoring entire aspects of our past - who here, over the age of 30, doesn't remember getting a puff or a drink from their "naughty" aunt or uncle when they were well under 10? So now Yahoo! and their staff advised by Supernanny, decide that this kind of thing is suddenly verboten regardless of any kind of context for the image itself.
Unbelievably retarded.
You guys sink to new lows of stupidity pretty much every year.
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whatever Heather, it's not like I've not been banned from here before. That seems to be the standard response. "We don't like what you're saying or how you're saying it, so therefore we'll just try to silence you."
Blah blah blah.
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't know where the idea of "suddenly" is coming from. As I mentioned previously, this has been on the books for sometime and yes, context is taken into consideration.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Pierre is a natural born promiscuous cunt, but, i have to agree with him here, it's time yahoo and flickr got it together and stopped censoring everything.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
Tony… edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
Just out of interest (and ignoring Pierre's unnecessary language and attitude), I didn't think it was illegal anywhere for children to smoke or drink. Just that it was illegal to purchase the raw material to do it with...
Is that not the case?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Does Flickr have a handy list of what types of images are prohibited due to their content?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
context is taken into consideration.
So if it's little 3rd world brown kids it's ok, right?
I'm right, aren't I?
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
""We don't like what you're saying or how you're saying it, so therefore we'll just try to silence you."
I don't want to silence you and I think that the forums prove that we're quite happy to let people have their say whatever that may be. What I won't tolerate is aggressive and abusive language towards the community and members of the team. Therefore, dialing back = good.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
jake, I have a feeling that the list of permitted images is much shorter.
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock, you are correct regarding tobacco. I am not entirely certain, but I think it's different for alcohol; I think it's illegal for people under 21 to consume alcohol when not under parental supervision.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather, you're an educated artist. Doesn't this kind of petty censorship grate on your soul?
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I didn't think it was illegal anywhere for children to smoke or drink. Just that it was illegal to purchase the raw material to do it with...
Is that not the case?
Brock, I believe in the US it is illegal for minors (under 18) to smoke, not just purchase cigs (edit: though linus says otherwise... now I'll have to look it up :). But I know it is illegal for anyone in the US to drink alcohol under the age of 21, unless they are in their own home (and I believe a parent has to be home as well).
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here in the UK, and a lot of Europe, Alcohol can be consumed at 5 (with parental supervision)
Children are allowed in pubs at any age but not in the bar area.
It is the purchasing that is illegal, not the consumption.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Side note, in Europe, minors can drink some forms of wine and are given. As this is the internet, are you going to start policing streams like you did with the Germans only trying to weed out US youngsters for booze abuse?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, according to WA state law:
Penalties for Sales to Minors
Every person who sells or gives, or permits to be sold or given to any person under the age of 18 any cigar, cigarette, cigarette paper or wrapper, or tobacco in any form is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The Liquor Control Board may fine a licensed person who violates this provision $100 for the first violation within any two year period; $300 for the second violation within any two year period; $1,000 and suspension of license for a period of six months for the third violation within any two year period; $1,500 and suspension of license for one year for the fourth violation within any two year period, and revocation of a license with no chance of reinstatement for five years for the fifth or subsequent violation within any two year period. Any person other than a licensee who commits an offense may be fined $50 for the first violation and $100 for any subsequent violation. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person making a sale reasonably relied on any of the officially issued identification specified in RCW 70.155.090(1).
WASH. REV. CODE §§ 26.28.080 (1994) & 70.155.005 et seq. (1993).
Penalties to Minors
Individuals under 18 who purchase, possess, attempt to purchase or obtain any tobacco product are guilty of a Class Three civil infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $50, participation in up to four hours of community service, or both. The court may also require participation in a smoking cessation program. [emphasis mine]
WASH. REV. CODE § 70.155.080 (2002).
It probably varies by state, but California is extremely strict on smoking, so I'd assume they have a similar statute.
And if this was someone smoking a federally-prohibited substance (pot, apparently) then that presents a whole other set of issues.
[edited for emphasis]
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
I just put in a call to TH; you'll rue the day.
Pierre
PS: Where's ian to sycophant about? Ah well, I'm sure he'll be by later.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
phoneyman edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
Flybuttafly: So I was right then? It's all about the obtaining, rather than the consumption?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
FlyButtafly - I should rephrase. I know that it is not legal to sell tobacco to minors, and that is the enforcement target in underage smoking. I don't believe that there are possession laws, but I'm not certain about that. If you do look it up, I'm curious about what you find.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock - um, possession is listed there as an offense. Obviously you have to possess it to smoke it... ;)
phoneyman - I hardly think my copy/paste quote job there qualifies as a TH-esque post...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
But the crime lessens by the second, I guess, as it all goes up in smoke...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
phoneyman you'll rule the day
Do you mean rue the day?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock - Well that made me laugh... :)
(I wouldn't say the crime itself lessens... just the probability you'd be caught. ;)
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
M&Z, crap, I do!
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
phoneyman - ok, that changes the meaning a bit. haha.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
FYI, the photo in question as far as I know was taken in the UK. I am not sure what their rules of posession are. But boy, I am sure they are lucky they don't live in Washington. That 8 year old would be thrown in the clink for SURE.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mercy - thanks for reading what I posted. [/sarcasm]
A fine and/or community service is hardly "be[ing] thrown in the clink".
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Besides, fifty bucks as a fine is about what a pack of smokes costs these days, isn't it?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Haha, just about.
And you can't even hardly smoke them anywhere anymore, either.
Good thing I quit for good early last year.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"it's different for alcohol; I think it's illegal for people under 21 to consume alcohol when not under parental supervision. "
maybe, but it doesn't matter at all - flickr started to censor photos because of national laws. see the threads regarding germany.
alcohol - for example - is maybe forbidden in the USA for people under 21. but not here in a hundret other countries all over the world. so is flickr/yahoo going to force the world under the law of a foreign country (the US)?
as the german example did show us: NO!
so, heather: i would ask to be true to us all and do the same with this case than flickr did with germany:
request pictures that are morally/legally unbearable in the US to be marked that way and hide them for citizens of the US.
what this means for the freedom of arts has been discussed in thousands of postings. i don't like it. but it would be even better than to force the whole world under the law of the US...
we who are living in democracies outside the US have voted for our own laws. that's ok, we are able to make our own way. no need for nursing the world... and back to the example of germany: pictures of nudity have been hidden for flickrers from germany because the national law there says so. that was _your_ argument. german law does not forbid smoking teenagers. why shouldn't they see them now?
heather: regarding your claimed difference for prohibited/illegal... that's a nasty game that leads to nowhere... i don't like pictures of soldiers. and i honestly don't want my children to see pictures that glorify soldiers. there are a lot of photos like these here on flickr. will you delete them, too? i hope not, though i hate them.
everything else would make flickr to a nasty flowers & heaven stock photo platform. and i'd never dare to believe that this is what you and your team would like to have...
so, think about it.
ps: guys, i'm really concerned what will come when flickr/yahoo opens the first office in china... arrrgh!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
flickr started to censor photos because of national laws. see the threads regarding germany.
Actually, Flickr's filtering policies didn't change a bit because of Germany; German law only affects what people registering through Flickr's German offices are allowed to do with their filter settings.
German users are the ones demanding that Flickr censor everyone else to comply with German law, which was the alternative.
US law does not forbid photographs that depict minors smoking or consuming alcohol; the decision to not allow such photographs on Flickr in their decision and theirs alone and doesn't represent kowtowing to some oppressive regime.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
doesn't represent kowtowing to some oppressive regime.
Sure it does.
It's just that this particular oppressive regime happens to be Yahoo!
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's just that this particular oppressive regime happens to be Yahoo!
More than likely its a 'frisco thing.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"The image of a crime is not a crime. "
really? no child porn laws where you're from? No tresspassing/voyeur laws? No snuff-film laws? No bestiality laws?
In Germany, my understanding is, depending on context, the depiction of certain symbols is actually a crime.
So some of your horses are a bit high, in my opinion. Admittedly, it's a shame I won't be seeing certain Van Halen covers here either. But then those run afoul of other Flickr rules, I guess.
[mcmlxxxiv]
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
It's just that this particular oppressive regime happens to be Yahoo!
Actually, it's not. It's all Flickr. While it might be pleasing to harsh on our mothership, it's misplaced. We've defined our own policies.
I guess that we've taken a fairly conservative approach in "thinking the children." Our overall policies have always been crafted to protect minors and in that you can't pick and choose when you want to think of them and when you don't.
That said, context is everything and I can't respond to the specifics of this case as our overall policy precludes the nitty gritty due to our respect of our Privacy Policy.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, it's not. It's all Flickr. While it might be pleasing to harsh on our mothership, it's misplaced. We've defined our own policies.
Wow. How short sighted.
So, basically, Flickr has gone from purportedly being a site dedicated to "Photographers" to a site dedicated solely to "think of the children"? I thought they had parents for that kind of shit. Taking the most restrictive approach on "the children" issue is utterly disrespectful to your members, whom I'm sure are in the vast majority, over the age of 13.
It's a typically modern outlook that infantalizes everybody. It's utterly stupid and without merit. Turning adults into infants is of no benefit to anyone anywhere.
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can find tons of pictures on Flickr of kids smoking. Street kids in NY, jewish kids on Israel. Popular, public images that have been here for years. So before you demonize Flickr as if they're suddenly going on a purge, is it possible that this particular case may have some context that we aren't aware of?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
and what about those?
Search for smoking kids ~ 2000 photos
@The Searcher: Yep, that was my next question: What made this case so special?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Azchael said: "What made this case so special? "
Heather said: "I can't respond to the specifics of this case as our overall policy precludes the nitty gritty due to our respect of our Privacy Policy."
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@FlyButtafly: Right, sorry, oversaw this statement.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Glad someone brought up the child porn example to upend the "a picture of a crime is not a crime." Puts that myth to rest.
Oh, and... this other "Brock" character? He's an impostor. I'm just saying...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's been banned since the morality police slipped into town...you probably missed that putrid bunch of haters moving in. They always wear black and/or camo with no ID, so...
The Searcher and heather can be seen posting in coordination often. They both suck when it comes to free speech, censorship, etc.
Both push world saving guff on normal people like us as if they have a given right to.
Both heather and The Searcher should bugger off to the basement of some cult, Christian order (intent on saving the world from all evil) and leave normal people alone. Not sure I'd feel safer, but we'd be freed from some worthless, puritanical persecution for a time, anyway...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, basically, Flickr has gone from purportedly being a site dedicated to "Photographers" to a site dedicated solely to "think of the children"?
There's nothing new in this policy. If something is brought to our attention via Report Abuse, then we review. This has always been the case.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties.
So what's that mean then?
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
bluemorningwind, I don't mean to pull rank, but I've been a member of the community and then a member of the team for quite some time. Please dial back your attitude.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That Yahoo! adopted Flickr's policy instead of vice-versa? They happened to be in alignment? I have no idea.
I don't get why Flickr would remove any photo that does not violate the law or someone's copyright.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 So your point of view is that people who are sincere and consistent in their beliefs should not be allowed to express themselves in a public forum? And you are putting this forward in support of your opposition to flickr censorship?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
bluemorningwind: for someone named "wind", you sure..
nevermind. silly man.
I was arrested in a bar fight last year for defending my right to draw George Bush nekkid in public (warning "restricted" content). I had a gallery show picketed by creationist zealots for poking a little fun at jesus.
So honestly, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Knee-jerk reactionary spittle at something you have very little actual awareness of, comes off as hollow and unhelpful. There could be actual merit to the issue presented here. But when you simply attack people personally, and the whole "corporate demon" thing, it's wasted breath and defeats the purpose.
nothing but wind.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Seems as though we are heading in to the realm of 'thought crime'.
Peter
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Attitude" Seems an aims based title to tag me with. I expressed an opinion, but let's forget that, shall we?
May I speak frankly without fear of persecution, heather?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Depends on the "thought". Again, there's tons of pics on the face of it, of kids smoking, on Flickr. So the "more to this story" element may be crucial.
However, some countries seem to think there is such a thing as a "thought crime". Images of swastikas are allowed on Flickr, yet they are forbidden in Germany under most contexts. everyone's got their priorities, I guess.
I can't find anyplace on Flickr's FAQs where it offers even a basic general rule of what's "prohibited", however. It just says "don't post images that are illegal or prohibited". So certainly some sense of what crosses Flickr's lines, yet isn't illegal, might be helpful. Even if context plays a role.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It depends upon what you mean by frankly. You're free to share your thoughts on Flickr and the Flickrverse as long as they are respectful of the community and the team. Your previous topic was devoid of that.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Honestly, I don't get it. This is not a "do whatever you want" site, and when you signed up, you got the whole legal thingamajig that explicitly said so. This is not about censoring (at least, not in this case), but about protecting their own butts.
Frankly, I have no issues with these issues here. You want a totally uncensored photo site, phoneyman? Then start one, and prepare to deal with legal issues yourself.
You really hate Yahoo!/Flickr that much? Well, why by Hel are you here still then?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
FlyButtafly Hey, haven't you ever heard of detention? That's the clink for any kid under 18. :) (The first post was a joke... this one is a continuation to get my point about how ridiculous this all is).
I find this all rather interesting in general. I've seen many images of children smoking and drinking, or what I assume, doing so. This was the first one I heard about getting deleted. Personally, none of these I have seen them puffing smoke or actually "looking like" they were really doing anything. I've also seen drug abuse photos (which as far as I know is illegal in the US), violence, and other images that in many varying ways if taken in the same manner, could very well be construed in the same way as that shot.
I mean, seriously, we can take these arguments of censorship down ridiculous paths of needing to censor people. I'd rather not go down those paths. Please don't make me. :}
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, in the interest of "the children", does Flickr ban images that contain:
- imagery related to children under the age of 18 eating fast food;
- imagery related to children under the age of 18 playing video games;
- imagery related to children under the age of 18 swimming without waiting 30 minutes after eating;
- imagery related to children under the age of 18 watching movies that are rated "R";
- imagery related to children under the age of 18 playing the lottery?
What about imagery that children under the age of 18 might take as an encouragement to perform activities not advised for their tenderness of age, but involve only adults? What if it's a picture of Big Bird (or someone who looks like him) having a butt, or a beer? What about pictures of Power Rangers running with scissors?
Can Flickr, in it's infinite parental wisdom, help me out with these pressing questions?
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Patrick, NO, YOU'RE WRONG!!!
Your response is a rehearsed response, right? I bet you've used it many times, right? Come on, God be your witness...
Being sincere and consistent doesn't mean your right. It doesn't mean other people's ideas can be blocked.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
bluemorningwind edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
That's exactly my point. Your post asked that The Searcher and Heather be blocked from expressing their ideas in this forum. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
FlyButtafly Hey, haven't you ever heard of detention? That's the clink for any kid under 18. :)
Um, yeah, thanks. I know what Juvy is. And I'm sorry, but I still fail to see anywhere in the legal code something that says a kid's gonna be locked up for lighting up.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties.
I am still curious as to what this means and why it was phrased as such in light of what Heather had to say regarding Flickr making their own rules....
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I want to know if they'll ban pictures of peanut related products next. I mean, just think of the children who are allergic to peanuts!
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
so i guess without heather or the initial poster revealing the details of the "special situation" a discussion is quite obsolete.
heather must not/should not do it because of privacy policy. so if the initial poster is really interested in his question it would be up to her/him to give further information. if she or he doesn't then i have to assume that it isn'r really worth thinking about it.
@heather: thanks for explaining your point of view and bringing some light and facts into the discussion. though i cannot follow all your arguments. it seems a little bit arbitrary how the team defines what is prohibited or not. on the other hand a kind of "list of prohibited things" as wanted by some posters would be much more restrictive because it wouldn't be possible to foresee all possible cases and circumstances. should mean: i don't know what to do ;-)
so good night and a nice weekend to all of you...
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
pixelkuh (says "goodbye" to .at) edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties.
I also want to know where room for context is!
Pierre
PS: But don't forget to answer the Power Rangers question!
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I assume that what is meant is that irrespective of any Yahoo rules the flickr team have always been down on photos of kids smoking, and it wouldn't matter a jot if other Yahoo sites were cool about it.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
But we still need to know why this particular shot was removed. There are lots of shots of kids smoking here on this site, so what was different about this one??
And after giving up smoking earlier this year, i now really fancy one! Doh!
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Do you think that really helps in any way?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There are lots of shots of kids smoking here on this site
Perhaps those ones haven't been dobbed in
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wooble - he's a phisher posting from a hijacked account. He's pissed because I won't talk to him in the other topic anymore.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
|
I have found my favourite.
NB All may be offended by this. It is a shot (not real) of a small child with a cigarette in its mouth. But darn funny for sure.
sorry.
flickr.com/photos/sammyjammy/1053639049/
EDIT
oh, and it made it to number 1 in explore evidently
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oooh! Are pictures of kids playing with explosives prohibited? Kids with firearms? Kids with simulated firearms? Candy cigarettes? Licorice pipes? Licorice cigars?
Since Flickr has decided that Flickr knows best, for the children, I expect that you should quickly busy yourselves eliminating all child-harmful (as defined by you in a boardroom) references from the joint. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Pierre
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Flickr /Yahoo does what Flickr/Yahoo wants to do... and anyone waiting for a staff member to give you hard and firm rules about what can and can't be posted might as well give up.
It's like the FCC's refusal to define obscenity beyond the most broad terms... it creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship which is anathema to art.
This is not a website for artists, journalists, or anyone serious about photography. I might have been at one point, but that time is over.
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Censorship is quite different to the application of ToS which by default every member has signed up to of their own free will.
As there is no restriction on resigning membership of the site those that continue to subscribe to what they believe to be an oppressive organisation lack any real integrity and substance to argue with.
Seems pretty distasteful to me. Anyone got a fag?
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PATRICK COSTELLO, you didn't answer my questions. Why not?
PATRICK COSTELLO, No, YOUR STILL WRONG!!! I didn't ask that The Searcher or heather be blocked from expressing an opinion at all, did I?
Let me point this out, having an opinion and having the ability to impose an opinion are clearly different things!
Posted 10 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Since everyone knows that children (under the age of 18) love puppies Flickr should also prohibit pictures of |
