|
|
So what other politically incorrect shit do we need to beware of?
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So what other politically incorrect shit do we need to beware of?
Context, boi, context.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Fuck context. If the picture isn't illegal, and it's moderated correctly, then the only reason for deletion is political correctness. So what else do those of us who may not share Flickr staffs political inclinations need to be aware of?
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They can't tell us because they don't know.
They won't know until an instance arises and then they'll make a decision based on the current feeling about whatever it is.
There is no answer.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Basically they have decided to foist their own politics upon us.
Kids who look like they live in "the West" smoking == banned.
Poor brown 3rd world kids who are only smoking because Big Tobacco has started foisting their unwanted product off on the World's poor == OK, I mean, just look at the context!
Just as a guess!
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Surely the fact that it was not the poster's photograph is relevant, is it not? Is that not cause for deletion?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It might be relevant, but deletion for that reason supposedly requires an NOI, which would hardly result in saying the photo was being deleted for its content.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brock,
this Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties is the relevant text, making the ownership of the image completely irrelevant.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Basically Flickr is imposing it's own viewpoint of Political Correctness on the content of its members streams completely arbitrarily, and that's disgusting.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If it was the photo that is on the blog, and the photo wasn't taken by the uploader, and the same text was underneath it as on the blog, then what you have is a web photo of a child smoking, where the accompanying text implies that the child is some joy rider, and lotherio. A joke for sure but given that such images are generally 'prohibited' there is little redeeming that would allow flickr to push against that policy (even if they wanted to).
IOW there is nothing concerning 'documentary' photography wrt to the upload.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties
'nuff said, Walwyn.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
[Seriously as a photographer, do you feel that this is okay?
If I go and and do a documentary series of my local area, kids smoking outside the corner shop included (as they do outside every corner shop in England), would you delete them?]
I don't know the answer. As I mentioned previously, context is everything and we deal with reports of abuse on a case by case basis.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/54689/308228/
Understanding that you'll probably pick apart whatever I say anyway, but my personal feelings are that the Context actually allows us as Flickr to push against the some of the Yahoo policies that are no-doubt put into place by well intentioned lawyers for good reasons.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/54689/308272/
What it seems is being said is that
1. flickr don't like photos of kids smoking on general principles.
2 that it is also a yahoo policy.
3. that a photo of a kid smoking is likely to be deleted unless there is some extenuating circumstance. ie photos that you've taken of the kids in your area, or whatever.
4. that there were no such extenuating circumstance as far as this was concerned.
'nuff said.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but my personal feelings
Said by someone who, apparently, has exactly zero input into these decisions anyhow. Said in such a way as to explicitly make clear that these feelings are separate and distinct from the way Flickr actually does things.
Which leaves us with two conflicting statements and no solution. No pointers to what else we need to watch out for, and no guidelines on how to deal specifically with smoking child pictures. EG: What general set of circumstances contextually sets up a smoking child picture for deletion, and what set of circumstances could describe a context for a smoking child picture that is not deleted.
So what we're left with is that some Princess down at Flickr doesn't like smoking, and therefore your smoking child pictures, for the sake of the children are subject to arbitrary deletion.
Pardon me if I find that a stupid policy to have.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Said by someone who, apparently, has exactly zero input into these decisions anyhow.
Said by someone that is nearer to the decision making process than either you or me, and whose opinion would certainly answer the question as to why the 1000s of other kid smoking photos haven't been deleted.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey Eric we're all interested in your personal opinion. It's very enlightening.
But more than that, we're interested in what the official Flickr policy is. Could you see about getting an answer for that?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But more than that, we're interested in what the official Flickr policy is. Could you see about getting an answer for that?
No!
Jake, you make me laugh, how could Flickr possibly give us an answer to that question? It only affects what images we are allowed to post here, so what interest is it of ours anyhow?
silly boy!
@walwyn, you're no ian, but you'll do.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So what we're left with is that some Princess down at Flickr doesn't like smoking, and therefore your smoking child pictures, for the sake of the children are subject to arbitrary deletion.
From what I gather it wasn't the uploader's photo. In normal circumstances it would have been deleted had there been a NOI, given the subject and context, they decided that a NOI wasn't necessary, and is probably why most of these:
www.flickr.com/search/?q=smoking+kid&ct=6
would stay but the thievery by whoreker ought to get removed.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties
So they just lied?
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So they just lied?
Nope!
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I always go for the cock up theory over the conspiracy theory and the indications here are that no-one at Flickr's got any more of a clue about what the rules are than the rest of us.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You folks are spinning your wheels here if you honestly thing Staff is going to seriously engage you on this topic. All you'll see from this point forward is fish-slapping when someone gets too hot.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All you'll see from this point forward is fish-slapping when someone gets too hot.
Yeah, they're dicks that way.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe someone will deign to tell us why smoking is such a big deal but kids with guns isn't?
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kids with guns are legal most places. it's character building.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But, as Heather informed us earlier, "legal" is distinct from "prohibited" and Flickr has certain policies for the children to keep them safe. So I'm just wondering.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Meanwhile the censors continue.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
if you never teach your kids to shoot guns safely, they'll always be in danger. Last I checked, there was no safe way to learn to smoke.
but really, I kid. It's either against some policy or else it was over some other issue (like the photo being stolen. Didn't someone say it was stolen? but then if it was, why recite some weird policy?)
that link, what's your point? Devoid of context once again, how do we know what happened? Maybe the photographer didn't appreciate the shot of his kid being abused for some political statement, and deleted it himself? Or maybe he just rotated or replaced it, to break the link?
propaganda and manipulation can be addictive. but in the long run you'll sway more folk with actual facts.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The photographer had added his picture to the Kids Smoking group. It was an awesome photo with dozens of comments and many faves. I've emailed the photographer asking him why it was deleted. I'll pass that on once I hear.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
now see, there you go. some facts.
depressing ones, in fact. definitely post back. one image vanishing while so many others there haven't, continues the hit-or-miss inconsistency of this whole thing.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've been having a ponder about this.
Let's face it Corin isn't exactly known for her original approach to photography, often her composition, structure and processing are surprisingly similar to other photo's to be found on tinternet.
Everyone knows that and Corin only pretends to say otherwise.
The photo's posted by Corin are nothing without the text that go with them.
They add context often so far removed from the original intent of the photo as to render the original meaning unintelligible.
Corin writes friction fiction, designed to make you laugh, be shocked and often challenges norms and social conventions.
The whole stream is filled with images and writing that cannot be separated, little urban myths of horror, perversion and observation.
There are literally thousands of people who like this approach and go back time and time again for their kick of the surreal. I often think it's just as funny reading the reactions of those that think they get it as those that don't like it...
Now, my point is, therefore taking the above into consideration, the censorship of this photo has little to do with he actual shot itself, more it is to do with the visual imagery juxtaposed with the linguistic context of the text.
Flickr boys and girls are inadvertently censoring writing.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but it wouldn't be inadvertent then, would it? If the image is stolen, or the parent complained, then fine, they can hack it away for that. But then why call out a weird rule against kids smoking that's supposedly always been in effect?
Unless they really didn't have any idea how many images of kids smoking there were on Flickr? Which in itself is odd considering how easy it is to search for such things (and how quickly many of us did just that). It's a bit like saying "there's never ever been kittens allowed on Flickr". um. hello?
I'm actually a little shocked no one made a "kids smoking" group before now. Curious how that will work out, considering the apparent "Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties" dictate. That seems to have little to do with "context" at all.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think the flickr staff are deliberately censoring anything to be honest. I suspect it was a case of the offended nice folk of flickr complaining,Terence getting all over excited and deleting the picture before he thought about it.
silliness rather than anything else...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think you're probably right os.
And I think that the text played a big part of the decision.
If the picture had been standing alone, taken by the guardian, or with permission to use, and there was no mockery (regardless that whatever was said would not have been against the child) then it would have been left alone....as are most other pictures of kids smoking or with guns etc on Flickr.
I think they spoke without thinking too much.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...and then enacted the Official "we fucked up but for god's sake don't admit it or apologise and we'll probably get away with it" policy..
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(again)
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heh, worked brilliantly then :)
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
23.09.2007
Today should be a happy day, number 100 in my 365 days set. But it all turned out so different. Flickr decided out of the blue that smoking children can't be photographed. Ofcourse Flickr can show hardcore porn, violence and poverty .... but smoking, ofcourse not!
I got this e-mail yesterday:
====
case354736@support.flickr.com
Hi Maarten Dors,
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 "The Romanian Way"
from your photostream.
We appreciate your understanding.
-Terrence
====
They appreciate my understanding? Wich understanding? I just want my photo back!
It was my most interesting photo and has been on Flickr for almost two months. Why delete it all of a sudden. I didn't upload it because I thought it was a pretty sight to see a small boy smoking. I uploaded it because I wanted to tell something. I wanted to show the world how living in poverty can be, what it does with small children and wanted to start a discussion about it (and they deleted that very good discussion too!).
Ofcourse Flickr doesn't mind children doing drugs, because the photos I took of small children inhaling glue are still there. Is that the Flickr message ... Smoking is very bad, but hey .. you can always use drugs!
Tommorrow about this time I will decide if I will continue posting on Flickr.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What the heck is going on????
Any understanding I reached over this has just evaporated.
Can someone please explain the reasoning behind this one!!!!!
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unless they really didn't have any idea how many images of kids smoking there were on Flickr?
I just realized I have a picture of a kid "smoking" in my private pictures. I don't make family pictures public but I scanned a box of family pictures and uploaded them to share with relatives who don't live nearby. One of them is of a very little kid (looks like about 3yr old but he might have been older because he was a small child) dressed up like a pirate - how ironic - on Halloween and posing with a cigarette in his mouth and a scurvy dog expression on his face. It's maybe a little more cute than the deleted photo but nevertheless it is still a picture in which some adults dressed up a little kid for a photo and put a cigarrette in his mouth because it was cute. I believe the deleted photo was posted for the same reason - its cute in the way of photos created by adults to make kids look bad in a funny way.
I think to find the secret of what is ok/not ok on flickr you have to look closely at that word "cute". I think staff would find similar photos in their own family photo boxes if they looked.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is Terrence the deleting man? Because, man, I do NOT want his job.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've been offline for the last 36 hours so I'm not up to speed on the latest photo removal. I will post again when I know the backgroud. Thanks for your patience.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Terence must have grown himself a moo-stache...
if this has happened, it's wrong. Maybe flickr staff should consider giving people a chance to download their photo's before they remove them, after all there is a good chance people don't have all their photo's on their hard drive...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Terence must have grown himself a moo-stache..
Please refrain from singling out individual team members. We are Flickr and the actions of one are the actions of all. I stand behind every action that the team makes and in the instances of Customer Care, the buck stops with me.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maarten, We messed up and I'm very sorry that your photo, "The Romanian Way" was removed from your photostream. It should not have been and I'm working with the team to ensure that we have a better understanding of our policies so that they are applied correctly.
Maybe flickr staff should consider giving people a chance to download their photo's before they remove them, after all there is a good chance people don't have all their photo's on their hard drive...
One of the next items on the job board is a sort of holding pen for photos so that in issues like copyright and such as what happened to Maarten, the photo could be put back with the associated meta data in place.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We are Flickr
That's a bit scary. Is that like, 'we are the Borg'?
(Sorry couldn't resist).
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Has this delete happened after or before the delete of shhexycorin's photo? I hope it was before or at least before the censorship discussions started. If not, flickr is sending a very wrong message.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for just admitting that Heather, and coming straight back with an apology.
A holding place sounds like a good idea.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
fair enough Heather, but does that apology also stretch to the other deleted photo?
If I may ask, without meaning to be awkward, why ever not?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather to quote you from the other post....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.
Your system currently allows any kid with a laptop at Starbucks to log in and view pure porn by the truckload. In light of the German censorship issue, one would presume Yahoo is doing all it can working towards a state of the art age verification system?
Instead you have thrown in the towel and cut Germany off rather than appease their law to protect children.
This site is probably the #1 best harvest for kids having access to porn on the web. They all have Yahoo id's and fill out any age u like. I can't say you are thinking of the children at all, really.
On this issue you are presuming a kid seeing a kid smoking would make them also want to do it but theres not much logic to that considering kids see adults smoking all the time and aspire to be grownups before their time usually. Theres probably more chance an adult would influence a child so what about banning all cigarettes from this site to protect the children?
Now you want to create a holding pen for what you plan to censor? All this effort can't be for the illegal images as illegal has no rights, so its presumed Flickr intends to get deeper into dictating whats is or isn't appropriate for todays photographers to shoot and display?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking
tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties."
Really? Seriously? They forbid Associated Press photojournalists from covering problems with underage smoking?
Does Yahoo also forbid photos of underage drinking? Why not? Underage drinking is just as illegal as underage smoking, and is far more deadly. Yet I see photos of minors with alcohol around Flickr. Why are they tolerated?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Please delete the following immediately in accordance with TOS:
www.flickr.com/photos/13019381@N03/1346889133/
www.flickr.com/photos/sindy_nero/353061755/
www.flickr.com/photos/weshweshpix/1120123422/
www.flickr.com/photos/clkbj/738090775/
www.flickr.com/photos/gagaloc/56915261/
www.flickr.com/photos/yeahbaby4801/61058548/
www.flickr.com/photos/soluztrella/357703877/
www.flickr.com/photos/himliano/1050904697/
www.flickr.com/photos/11882655@N02/1196824323/
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So why is it that there has to be vociferous complaining to address obviously boneheaded moves such as outright deleting photographs based on political correctness? Why is Flickr's version of what is politically correct and what is not even an issue? Why should we, the users, the people who actually make Flickr relevant at all, have to worry about what you might think about our artistic taste?
Like I said, this is fucking moronic.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you Heather for addressing this. I think everyone in the Flickr community on what exactly is and is not allowed.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suspect it was a case of the offended nice folk of flickr complaining,[a guy] getting all over excited and deleting the picture before he thought about it.
You know, I mentioned before that the deletions that occur are often so thoughtless it was probably a censor-bot running around doing it, Stewart got all publicly crybaby on me and told me that no no no, real humans do the deleting. Then there was some back-and-forthing about blanket policy and whatnot. So it seems in this case there is a blanket policy until someone complains about it, in which case there is "context", and "wiggle room" and all kinds of other bullshit.
So do people need to get the attention of a few hundred other vocal Flickr users to protect their photostreams from overzealous censor-bots, triggered by over-sensitive shut-ins? Why can't Flickr just ignore the shut-ins? They don't know what happens afterwards anyhow, so just let the crybabies hit the "abuse" button all day long and ignore most of it.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the problem with politically correct censorship is that it all depends on who is in charge of the social agenda as to what is permissible.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, if it was up to me I'd delete pictures of hippies unless the context made them look like asshats, in which case I'd put them in Explore.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A guy in the FC thread made a good point...why not just make it restricted?.....oh whoops all the kids have filter set to all content...my bad.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why even worry about it unless Flickr has a particular political message that they want this site to reflect?
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
edit: I just read above that the picture 'The Romanian way' was erased by mistake, so what I wrote here doesn't hold anymore.
Where's the 'delete post' button???
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
عʈ¡ - ʇıɯʃ ıʇӡ ʞıɹӡ edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
|
there has been at least one other, again I ask, was that deleted by mistake?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
he picture 'The Romanian way' was erased by mistake
No it wasn't. It was deleted for the reasons quoted in the email, but re-instated because Flickr was publically embarassed by it. That seems to be how this joint rolls.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In the German SafeSearch settings topic, it is stated:
As we’ve stated before, Flickr’s intent is never to censor content, but rather to comply with local legal restrictions.
Here above it says
Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking
tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties.
I do see a contradiction. Although Heather acknowledges that Flickr messed up, it is still important what the real policy is on censorship.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr will gladly censor content for the children.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I hate balloon men, please can flickr add them to the list of undesirable images?
please.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
os, find a pic of a balloon man. Hit "Report Abuse", choose "I saw something that makes me uncomfortable."
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
erk
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 there has been at least one other, again I ask, was that deleted by mistake?
This question really does deserve an answer.
Two days ago you justified deleting someone's photo of a child smoking, yet today you have apologised for deleting someone else's.
The community guidelines ask that we 'don't forget the children' by flagging adult content with a filter. I can't believe that you would delete images like this without requesting that a filter restriction be applied first.
If it is now your policy to just delete things you don't want on Flickr, then you should at least start with something genuinely contentious, like the swathes of porn 'stolen' from elsewhere on the web and uploaded here.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Are you sure there were 2 photos involved?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Or perhaps the oodles of "voyeur" shots: upskirts, downblouses, pantie glimpses, obviously sexualized women-in-public, maybe something like that. I'm surprised that isn't on Flickr's PC filter.
Note that I don't want it to be, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the horror the horror.
As I posted in dmu, the local police put up a sign saying "please report all intimidating groups", so I phoned up and reported the rotary club.
the 'report images' has the same problem as silly signs, the intention is good, but if the decision making procedure is as subjective as the initial complaint then it is wide open for mistakes.
Not to mention if that is then compounded by politically correct mantra's trickling down from the great and good at Yahoo.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Are you sure there were 2 photos involved?
Yep!
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda, copied from elsewhere:
Hello C,
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.
-T
(names pulled to comply with Heathers request...)
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
.eti says Where's the 'delete post' button???
Yes, I've always wondered about that too. You can edit or delete your posts in other groups but in the forum it is written in stone unless a staff chooses to delete it. Why is it not possible for the author to edit their own posts in the forum?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ther﹣esa wrote Why is it not possible for the author to edit their own posts in the forum? You can. Just click the 'edit' link at the end of your post.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
unless there is another topic in the forum that addresses the "edit/delete post" issue I'm still wondering about it. The comment above mine is confusing: osoment says: (names pulled to comply with Heathers request...) If osoment is not able to edit his comment to pull names should we conclude that staff editied his post to comply with Heathers request?
I know its a slightly different topic but somebody asked the question above re deleting posts.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Really what is the problem here? Flickr have reserved the right to remove photos they don't like and people should understand that (having signed up). You don't have to like it.
It also seems to me that photos are considered (in context) for removal if they are reported. Hence the reason that many other 'smoking children' photos have not been deleted (though I bet some have now been faceciously reported). Its nothing new. Just search for any celebrity here on Flickr and you'll find plenty of photos obviously not the property of the stream owner, but if you don't report them they'll likely stay here. Flickr staff cannot reasonably moderate all images and are therefore, necessarily, reactive when it comes to reviews and this sort of 'moderation'.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
brenda: oh, I see it now. But you can't delete?
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ther﹣esa wrote should we conclude that staff editied his post to comply with Heathers request? If staff had edited his post, it would say in italics "so and so edited this post".
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
no no sillies, I edited it...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kyudos: Read the rest of the posts to get a drift of the issue... I think that as one agrees a contract with flickr before purchasing the service, it is only polite for flickr to let you know if there has been a change in T&C.
Especially if it means that as a UK citizen I am affected by what appears to be US law. Smoking is allowed from sixteen in the UK.
I note that flickr hasn't been so fast to block US users from seeing these images as they have to block the German users from seeing images that contravene locality restrictions.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This situation makes me seriously reconsider whether or not I should renew my pro membership, or whether or not I should continue to use flickr.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Really what is the problem here? Flickr have reserved the right to remove photos they don't like and people should understand that (having signed up). You don't have to like it.
You're right, but that doesn't mean that the specifics of this shouldn't be discussed. There's no point hosting a service if nobody wants to use it in case their photos disappear overnight.
When I read that in the ToS, I (justifiably I think) assumed that they were referring to the likes of child pornography, groups using fora for illegal purposes etc. I never imagined that photographs of a child smoking would be deleted outright.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As outlined they seem to be pretty clear that they don't particularly like photos of kids smoking. However, they'll leave them in place if there is some redeeming context. In one case there was none, in the other case there was and they have apologized for having deleted it.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Well, they apologized for deleting the second picture, not the first apparently. Unless I missed that one. THAT one is still happily deleted.
I think a holding area is fine, however, I still don't quite understand why pictures in question can't be put on a safe search function instead of being deleted. I mean, isn't porn worst than seeing some kid with a cigarette? Especially since, well, maybe some of these people doing said sexual acts may be, well, underage... and well, THAT is VERY illegal as well. And if Flickr is worried about "the children"... and "illegal and prohibitive" acts... that underaged sex is FAR worst than a misdemenor that most police wouldn't even stop their police car for fear of wasting their time on.
Of course, I could be wrong. I mean, policing cigarette smokers is FAR easier than under-age sex offenders, now isn't it? At least I would think so.
::shruggs::
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
post what you want. thats what photography is:
personal expression
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The guidelines anti-specify that we shouldn't upload "prohibited" content. Since it came as quite a shock to many people recently that kids smoking is one of these "prohibited" image types, it does beg the question of what other things are "prohibited". Outside of illegal, because that's covered. Why a set of secret rules governing legal images, that no one knows but must follow?
I don't understand why this 2nd image was RESTORED. I mean, why? It was in a group called "kids smoking", full of public images of kids smoking. Yet just THIS one gets deleted. But then unlike the first one, THIS one was actually ok, and not meant to be deleted.
wha? I mean, why? Staff, do you even understand the sort of confusion and unease you're setting up for your users?
The policy quoted says kids under 18 depicted smoking are prohibited. period. Not the context, not the journalistic potential. It's a pretty straightforward sounding policy.
So again, why was it restored? Clearly the image violates that policy. And further, why hasn't all of the images found in that group yet been deleted? All are violating that policy. You say you stand by each staff member and the decisions they make. But do you not also stand by your own policies? Why enact it at all, if you don't use it equally?
The dangerous issue when rules are created, but then used selectively, is that they become tools for actual censorship. Not the word people throw out here like skittles, but the actual act, the purposeful blocking of ideas. This whole thing makes no sense to me. If that oft-quoted rule is the RULE, then why isn't it followed? There's no "context" in that rule. It just is or it is not.
If one image is judged to be allowed, even while directly violating a hidden rule, then that should pretty much invalidate the rule itself.
And while you're at it, could you please list out any other secret rules that prohibit images that are otherwise legal. Just so we can do some image searches and quickly knock those down as well.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's a sad day in flickr history. delete first, ask questions later. thank you for your cooperation. move along...move along...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ososment I've read the whole thread, and as far as I can see (and as Heather has repeatedly said) there has been no change in policy - the policy re smoking children has always been in place. People tried to shoot this down with the "how come there are still photos of kids smoking" etc.
The point I was trying to make was that Flickr staff don't actively trawl through millions of images looking for things to remove, so if no one complains about an image I think its unlikely to be noticed unless Staff happen to 'browse' across it. Its not ideal and leads to perceived inequality of treatment but behaving reactively is the only practical appraoch to a problem with this scale.
Additionally, I don't believe you are being affected by a US law, but by Flickr policy, which (I repeat) you signed up for...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This isn't a policy for people to "report abuse" with. This was a hidden policy that until this event, wasn't posted or revealed to anyone. In other words we most certainly did NOT sign up for it. We'd have to have been able to read it first to sign up for it.
That's the hinky here. If there's rules, then post them. Unlike the filters, which rely on a shifting range of "appropriateness" (frustrating for some, but regardless, don't result in images being deleted, just re-filtered.) these rules, I mean THIS rule since how do I know if there are any others, aren't public, aren't revealed until someone crosses one of them.
And then once it IS public, it's selectively enforced. This isn't a situation where they can sit back and wait for "report abuse" complaints before acting. How could they? These images are simply against Flickr/Yahoo policy, not against the filters or any sort of disturbing imagery that would bother people. There is no system currently in place on Flickr that instructs people to turn in legal, properly filtered images.
And that's even if we knew which images we were supposed to be looking for. which in this case, and how many other still unknown cases, we don't.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And we also don't know how many complaints does it take to pull an image. That is never and has never been explained. I'd like to know because if it's one jerk in charge of filtering hundreds of images, that could be bad.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher I see where you are coming from, and perhaps it is just me, but I kind of assumed Flickr had reserved the right to remove any material they like for whatever reason they like (I admit I don't know if this is actually the case, but I contend that 'Don’t upload content that is illegal or prohibited.' Is deliberately vague for this reason).
Of course arbitrary enforcement of unknown rules is a pisser, but I don't see it as censorship but as Flickr enforcing the rights they have (probably) reserved. As I said earlier, you (meaning everyone) don't have to like it, but it is their website...
(For the record, in this case I think its a pretty dumb prohibition, but the removal of a photo doesn't cause me the same amount of angst it apparently causes others. Perhaps because I'm a self-confessed snapshotter whose 'work' has never been anything but 'Safe'. Still, it wouldn't bother me if one of my pics was removed, provided I was given the reason - life is too short to get worked up about these things).
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I get worked up because I'm here to share my "voice" and if Flickr takes it upon themselves to superimpose their own political views on top of mine it's blatant disrespect. They are a convenient conduit for my content, my work, and my voice, and I thought that's what I signed up for. I didn't expect prohibited images to be something as fucking lame as kids smoking. Which is why I, and others, want to know what else is on the PC shitlist.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
phoneymanYou honestly signed up to a third-party web service thinking you could post and say whatever you like in the confines of that community? Forgive me if I think you were a little misguided.
I knows its been said plenty of times, but you really sound like the kind of person who needs their own website. Perhaps that's a facile argument, but just because its easy doesn't make it wrong. Flickr is a company and as such are in it for the money (whatever they say), which means pleasing the majority. On your own site, you are the majority.
I think the key wording in your reply is "and I thought that's what I signed up for"...which makes it a matter of opinion, or semantics perhaps.
(And did you know that political correctness used to be called spastic gaytalk until they made it PC* ;o) )
*Thanks to Frankie Boyle for that one...
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kyodos: it is their site. But the usual refrain of if you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed up for it, doesn't fly when you don't know what you're signing up for. If they had a more general "we reserve the right to remove any image for any reason" then bob's your uncle, no controversy (except with how screwed up that would be.)
Instead they break out a hidden rule outside of any public documentation (that I've yet seen) that very basically states a simple fact: no images of kids smoking. period. Not certain kids, not street kids, ALL kids. period.
Then they proceed to delete TWO images of kids smoking.
Then they proceed to UNdelete one of them, calling it a "mistake".
That's my issue. Why Was It A Mistake? If it was "turned in", if they only delete images that violate this rule once they're made aware of them? Then on the face of it it certainly appears as if this image clearly violates their up-till-now hidden policy.
Directly. Plainly.
Yet they put it back. With apologies.
I don't want apologies. I want to know why this image does NOT run afoul of this simple rule. Because it appears that instead of following the rules that they want US to follow (psychically, apparently) they BROKE their own rule, for whatever reason that we're also supposed to understand at a basic level so we know what is, and what is not, allowed (again, apparently psychically.)
If it's a rule? fine. Then #1, why'd they break it? and #2, why haven't they purged Flickr of similar images? They can't wait for people to turn people in, since we don't know the rule. And a VERY simple search will give them the results (I suggest the "Kids Smoking" group as a good starting spot).
Applying hidden rules selectively, is very simply not a good thing.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You honestly signed up to a third-party web service thinking you could post and say whatever you like in the confines of that community?
Pretty much, yep. I figured if I wasn't posting illegal material I'd be fine. That's pretty much what the TOU say, in fact. To then find out that by "prohibited" Flickr means "whatever goes against our personal political agenda" is quite a let down. IF Flickr is content to let the website degenerate into nothing more than the least offensive imagery they can find then they'll get the site they deserve. It'll be a fucking misery for them to sign on every day and dredge through all the complaints from various sensitive types and respond by deleting everything that isn't utterly without offense. I don't know about you but I get pretty fucking sick of flower macros, kittens, sunsets, and naturey crap. There was a time when photographers were told that this was the site for them, and now we find out that that's no longer true. Photographers can go fuck themselves, apparently, because Flickr wants to keep things inoffensive for the Yahoo! photos crowd.
Flickr has always billed itself as an online community, not just another photo site. Yeah, I can create my own website, but I've spent a few years here building my own community, so pardon me if I feel a little possesive of the relationships I've built up.
Filters were billed as a way for us, the community, to self-rate ourselves in order to keep people more happy. Now, it turns out, that even completely inoffensive material that would barely rate a PG in a movie is "prohibited" here, because it violates Flickr's politically correct (but woefully misguided) sense of message.
I could think of something more fucking assinine than censoring imagery based on political viewpoint on a website such as Flickr, but it wouldn't be easy.
In the Germany brouhaha Heather complained about being called a "censor", but that's what Flickr is and does. They determine - based on their own political agenda - what "prohibited" means in terms of this site. Furthermore they absolutely refuse to elaborate on what they mean by "prohibited" other than to hand wave and say that it is distinct from legal.
Clearly Flickr has the right to delete whatever they feel like, but since they claim not to act that way, users have the right to be outraged.
As a community Flickr's users need to get along together, and the best way to do that is, in my opinion, to let the users work it out amongst themselves. By playing Nanny Flickr does the site a disservice: they play into the hands of the intolerant and ignorant and stifle discourse, interaction, and communication among those of disparate viewpoints. If this site is all about never offending anyone, then it's fucked. What ends up happening is that the most intolerant and the most ignorant force their views on everybody else. What's so horribly sad about this instance is that the intolerant and ignorant complainers are Flickr themselves.
Pierre
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good points all. You're actually working up my outrage just a little :o)
I do think its a little bit odd that you can upload graphic porn with no problems (provided your flags are correct), but they baulk at a kid smoking a fag.
That further leads me to believe that this case (and perhaps other singular instances) was simply a photo that was complained about and thus deleted (perhaps mistakenly).
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But it does make you wonder, why the contradiction? I agree with The Searcher. I understand and agree with context being a deciding factor - but when the person who emailed about the deletion(s) basically claimed that it was because photos of kids smoking was prohibited across all Yahoo properties (and apparently no further information)... well, it doesn't sound like context can be any sort of deciding factor at all. Someone's poor communication seems to have shot flickr in the foot.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but then what was the complaint? It certainly wasn't about a rule violation, since that rule wasn't public. If it were from the parent, or the photographer (in the case of a stolen image) then those are reasons for images to be deleted already on the books, no need for a new super-secret rule.
The graphic porn and other imagery that may offend people, all falls under the filter system. If the purpose of this rule is about possibly offending people, then it should fall under the filters and be considered "moderate" or "restricted".
This is outside of the filter system. Images of kids smoking are filtered as "safe", and there's no rule saying that they shouldn't be.
At least no rule that I've been able to psychically divine.
It's simple. If there's a rule, tell us, post it. We generally want to follow the rules. Hidden rules makes that hard.
And if there's a rule, why isn't it followed by Flickr? Why is it directly circumvented, with apologies, instead?
It's the utter confusion that baffles me. Or the bafflement that confuses me.The rule says:
"Images of children under the age of 18 who are smoking
tobacco is prohibited across all of Yahoo's properties."
The image that was restored [with apologies] is:
Hopefully there's no secret rule against posting an image in a forum discussion. Especially a photo that's just been given a pass on the only secret rule that it appears to quite plainly violate.
I just can't reconcile the text, with the image. I'd love to hear someone who can.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, I actually tried to find reference to that rule somewhere else, but the only place it shows up is in this discussion.
Posted 57 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
