|
|
Flickr FAQ: I am seeing a grey graphic in one of my comments, what is that all about?
Also this Official Topic: www.flickr.com/help/forum/72157631799320830/
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Lú_:
Yep, that's cronyism... VERY bad policy, and can bring rise to some litigation and an unfavorable light shed on the company.
They advertise as a public commons, yet they filter out dynamic content from everyone but a few that they have selected. I'm sure there are a few state and federal laws that could be brought against them.
I'm currently filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
n Bryan edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Ha ha ha! Good luck with that. :-)
You do realise, I take it, that all anyone has to do is click on the little ugly grey thing to see whatever 3rd-party image is being soft-blocked?
Litigation? Wow. Overreact much?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 n Bryan:
They advertise as a public commons
??
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is this some sort of crony censorship conspiracy
Yes.
Yes, it is. Because there could be no other explanation, of course.
and can bring rise to some litigation
Oh? How's that? I think you may want to put the brakes on the persecution angle and check out the links that Lu posted above. They spell out what's happening pretty clearly.
I'm currently filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission
Okay.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hm. I wonder why Americans are viewed as such a litigious people...
*cough* irony *cough*
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think they offered to "white list" certain sites that could be determined not to host sparkly blinky things. Perhaps if you find your best grovel you could get your site added.
Or even faster, just host that ancient qr code (do those things still work? I haven't seen one since 2011.) on your Flickr page, set it to "private" if needs be, and then re-post it to your profile.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm currently filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission
Do let us know how you get on, won't you?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 FlyButtafly: We hate slavery, tyranny the unjust and the crooked. God bless this great republic! :)
 kmacgray: Yes I read the links... They claim it's to speed up the site or stop 'tracking'... I never noticed anything slowing down. I'd imagine implementing "disable outside links" in the member's site preferences on an individual basis, their new "feature" would be a much fairer prospect.
The problem is, it's done on a selective basis. There are no guidelines for whitelists. They dictatorially make that decision for everyone. If it were like facebook, caching ALL images without exception to a static jpg on their servers it would be different. If they set forth guidelines for sites to avoid the ugly grey blotch, or made absolutely no exceptions it would be much different.
Lú_: When you're dealing in interstate commerce here in the US across state lines, there are some guidelines as to how you may promote yourself and conduct business. They advertise as a public commons. (Eg. Anyone may use the site and it's resources if they follow the rules) They are blocking everything but a select few of their choosing. Think of the people who use this as their public image.
 Nionyn_: It's the fact that they're only allowing certain of their arbitrarily chosen sites to remain unhindered, and casting that ugly grey image on everyone else. It's an image thing. Once again, they're involved in interstate commerce. They sell a service. They are governed by state and federal laws which regulate how they may conduct business. Unfair business practices are investigated by the FTC.
 Michael Smith: I surely will. I hope anyone else affected will do the same.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
n Bryan edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
n Bryan:
So your actual complaint is that they allow inline linking to a couple of approved sites and, in the interests of fairness, they should instead implement a blanket ban; no exceptions. I'm sure you'd be very popular with a lot of members who use BHL widgets if they followed your suggestion.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Patrick Costello:
Well, it would be FAIR. As it stands now, they arbitrarily, without guidelines, allow only a selected subset of those sites.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They claim it's to speed up the site or stop 'tracking'...
So do your italics on the word "claim" infer that Flickr is not telling the truth and there is some sinister ulterior motive?
They dictatorially make that decision for everyone.
That's correct. It's their site. As has been stated many times whenever they make a change, Flickr is not a democracy.
Also, I for one would genuinely appreciate any updates on the FTC claim. I'm curious as to the outcome.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Get's out the popcorn and soda. Watches with great anticipation as yet another folly unfolds.
It is a private company they can arbitrarily do a million things including deleting your account for any reason including things such as, "It's Monday" or even "Delete a random account day." None of these things are actionable in the legal system.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
n Bryan:
Have you tried initiating a legal action against every Highway Patrol in the country, for selectively enforcing their speeding laws? As they can't hope to catch every single speeder, surely it is fair that they should therefore not prosecute any?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Anyone remember when someone called Heather Champ a 'tiny fascist'? This thread is giving me that fuzzy nostalgic feeling.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Patrick Costello:
Obviously the answer is to remove *all* speed limits! Then you couldn't prosecute someone for speeding at all. It would be FAIR.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Over 21?
Uses "unfair" as a metric?
Lost touch with reality?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Third-party images are being blocked as of Oct.22, 2012 for security and performance reasons, with a few special exemptions. Users have noted that flickriver.com and bighugelabs.com are permitted within profile pages, for example.
The technical reasoning for this change is explained in the official thread. It goes on for a while (and there are some staff replies), but the initial post explains the gist of it.
Closing this one out.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
