|
|
I hope not, but at times it seems they can be over reactive with safety filters. Read this (now closed) thread to seee if it helps at all.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157631959938148/
And just to explain, IF flickr feel you have incorrectly flagged even just one item in your stream, they wil make the whole stream restricted. Suggesting you should be able to work out what is and what isnt restricted. (im just explaining how it works) :-)
Having had a look through your stream i cant find anything that is even moderate (though i am not staff!) But i also cant find the video you refer to.
Best of luck with this. Have you emailed staff? (bottom of page)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can understand Flickr having to investigate complaints, but to make an entire Account restricted based on a single complaint seems a bit unfair to me. Somebody could have uploaded 1000 beautiful woodland photos, then uploads 1 movie that somebody complains about, and suddenly the entire Account is restricted and the many people who came to visit the woodland photos are suddenly cut off from them. Okay, a contrived scenario, but surely there has to be a fairer way in dealing with these abuse flaggings. It also means that the previously Safe Account is now set to Unsafe even though the content is the same, the offending movie having been deleted by Flickr themselves in response to the complaint.
I understand the argument that you have to moderate your content and then submit for another Review, but more often than not you do not know what is wrong with your content and it is not clear from the rules, and so like me, you submit for a Review and it fails again and suddenly you are down to your last review.
All I would like to see is a bit more 2-way communication so that people can moderate their content fully understanding what they are doing.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amber~Jo edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Flickr don't restrict accounts purely based on complaints, the complaints just attract 'staff' attention for a review, and restricting the account then happens if the person doing the review thinks there's a problem.
Unfortunately, Flickr has relatively (and increasingly) few core staff, and it appears that a lot of the review and moderation work is contracted out, and the contractors seem to have a real problem getting this specific issue right. Whatever the cause, there's really no excuse for Flickr to not have fixed this - it keeps happening, and it's just not good enough.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can't think anything other than transphobia can be involved because these are totally clean pictures.I would like to point out that like any similar form of discrimination,transphobia is illegal in in the EU.I urge for the integrity of flickr that the moderators please reinstate the account holders status to "safe",
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Julia_Eastbourne edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Flickr has long had a standard which led many of us to suggest to the transgender community that their accounts would be judged as "fetish" accounts by Flickr staff and that to avoid problems for accounts created by transgendered individuals, the images in them all should be safety flagged as 'restricted'
It is well past time for Flickr to recognize that being transgendered is not a "fetish" and that images need not be hidden from the tender gaze of the transphobics among us. If an image of ME need not be flagged because it does not show nudity, then it is simply wrong to force the transgendered community to flag identical images as unsafe.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heather, I have visited your profile and I think it is out of order that your photos are marked as 'restricted'. And it is wrong for Amber's photos to be 'restricted' too, because, in my opinion, there is simply nothing wrong with them. On a few occasions, I tried to invite a number of Amber's photos to my Maxi long full flaring skirts and dresses (with trains) group, which I administer, and found I couldn't do so because of a restriction imposed on them. I thought; What??
It seems to me that Flickr are tarring the transgender community with the same fetish brush.
I am probably not as well informed but I do hope that this situation is resolved soon.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Flickr has long had a standard which led many of us to suggest to the transgender community that their accounts would be judged as "fetish" accounts by Flickr staff and that to avoid problems for accounts created by transgendered individuals, the images in them all should be safety flagged as 'restricted'
It is well past time for Flickr to recognize that being transgendered is not a "fetish" and that images need not be hidden from the tender gaze of the transphobics among us. If an image of ME need not be flagged because it does not show nudity, then it is simply wrong to force the transgendered community to flag identical images as unsafe.
I felt like standing up and applauding when I read that.
President Obama himself could not have said it better.
+1 (and more if it would count for anything).
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 austenhaines:
Hi AustenHaines.I actually put a comment on that thread about Amber Jo's account being labelled as "restricted" and thankfully that has now been restored to "safe".It is therefore ironic that we have now swapped places in that my account that was "safe" is now classified "restricted".I have very few views on my account so it would seem my having empathty for Amber Jo put me into the spotlight and resulted in my account being reclassified as "restricted".BTW the video was removed by flickr.
For those who haven't read my profile,I'd like to say that how i present myself is a way of life for me and and the clothes i wear are what i feel comfortable in.It is a matter of identity for me and has absolutely nothing to do with any fetish.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Heather 1967 edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Hey Heather
I think you will get a lot of empathy from other users here (myself included). I just wish Flickr would start to listen (as it seems they are not)
Best of luck with it.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hopefully, now we're back in the normal working week, one of the core Flickr staff might be able to have a look at this.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 The Ewan
"now we're back in the normal working week"
Here in Central U.S., it's still a holiday weekend. I assume California has similar holidays. (Though I've seen staff around and about the Forum today.)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh ... Heather 1967 has gone. The account is no longer active.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's a bad sign. I'll see if she deleted it herself, which I doubt.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey guys! Wanted to let you know two things:
1) We're taking this matter very seriously, and giving it the attention (internally) it deserves before responding in detail.
2) Sadly, the OP has deleted themselves (we didn't delete them!). :(
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 waferbaby
Thank you very, very much, waferbaby. We all appreciate Flickr staff for taking the time to seriously review this issue.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Daniel for trying. Very sad the OP came here with what seems is a issue and deletes before anything can be done..
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I deleted myself because i was finding the whole business getting on top of me.Yesterday I removed further (totally clean) photo's of me in a short skirt but still wearing tights as well as the other video with similar content to the censored one before requesting a review yesterday only to get this reply earlier today:-
"Hello Heather 1967,
Thank you for contacting Flickr Member Support.
As per our Community Guidelines, “restricted” video
content is not allowed on Flickr . We’ve removed your
video.
*** In order to expedite the Account Review process, we ask
that you please read the following email and follow the
instructions completely before writing back for a re-review
of your account. ***
Having a "restricted" or "unsafe" warning on your account
means we've determined there are items in your photostream
in the wrong Safety Level.
When you upload content to Flickr, you need to choose what
Safety Level it fits in:
www.flickr.com/help/filters/
A good rule of thumb is, bare breasts, bare/thong bottoms,
see through topless nudity, nipple covers, etc. are
"moderate." Genitalia, pubic hair, full frontal nudity,
fetish images, etc. are "restricted." Meaning, all
sexualized content in your photostream needs to be
classified as "restricted".
(Please note: Private content needs to be moderated as well)
You will need to moderate your content before asking for a
re-review. Moderating your images:
www.flickr.com/help/filters/#254
Because your account status is set to "restricted", all of
the images will appear as "restricted" in the organizr tool.
This may seem a little confusing at first but if you take
the required action of moderating your content as "moderate"
or "restricted" where appropriate, that will show on our
side when you request a re-review of your account status.
After you've moderated your images you can request a
re-review here:
www.flickr.com/help/with/review/
Thank you again for contacting us. If you have any other
questions, please feel free to reply to this email.
Regards,
Flickr staff"
I'm sorry but i couldn't moderate my photo's any more than i already had done.I just found it so upsetting to be stuck with what i consider a pornography tag that i felt unable to cope with the stress it was giving me any longer so i pushed the delete button.
I've created a new account but i'm thinking of keeping it private amongst friends for fear of the same thing happening again.I'm sorry as i now feel i have let anyone down and i would like to thank you all for trying to help out as i had done for Amber before being kicked in the teeth.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well if you keep your account private then you will not have any issues with your account.. Kinda goes against the whole reason for your Original thread..
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Heather Eastbourne Thank you, Heather, for trying to make this work.
Until we hear further from staff, who I believe ARE taking this seriously, you won't get any different response from the folks who handle day-to-day reviews.
Take a deep breath and try not to think of 'restricted' as "pornography", because on Flickr it is not. The safe search filters make no distinction between "art" and "pornography", but instead allow people to choose the levels of nudity and sexual activity that they view automatically.
I am convinced that we will see a different response after staff have had time to work through the implications and make convincing arguments to the entire, global Yahoo! staff. Remember that the safe search filters have to work in UAR and Burma just like they do in the US.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All i really wanted was for account to be reset to "safe" so that others that share or admire my lifestyle could enjoy my photos.I started this thread as i couldn't think of any other way of doing it.When i tried and failed via the orthodox route i despaired and it just seemed a lot easier just to delete and start again.I'd rather my account was public as it would be such a shame if only a small handfull of people could view my photos.
I really don't know what to do.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it's a sad ending that Heather felt the need to close her account. What the hell is the matter with you people????? I saw Heathers photos and there was nothing "offensive" or "pornographic" or "fetish" about them. It was an innocent person, proud of who she was and wanting to share. VERY SAD!!
Take me to the kittens? Take me to some sanity!!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really don't know what to do. If you can, just stick with it; you've not been doing anything wrong, Flickr has, and it's up to them to fix it.
On a side note, Flickr does have some ability to undelete accounts now, if that's something you'd like to pursue.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi! Welcome back!
My advice: Just sit back, have something to drink and let things take its course. You have achieved a lot already. Maybe you are the change we have been waiting for. Thank you. :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Before taking down the account ,I deleted all the photo's one by one for fear that they may have somehow remained here with the "restricted" tag.So i have grave doubts about a restoration being possible now.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah; yes. I'm afraid if you've done it that way, it's gone. Well, hopefully we'll get a resolution to this that makes you feel you can rebuild it.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah. Deleting those photos might have done it for good. Maybe a fresh start might not be a bad thing? Provided it's a welcome one?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I didn't have many views at all really though i was amassing a fair few contacts and i now feel awful about cutting them off like that .Other than a handful i can't remember who they are.
I haven't put any tags on so far to keep my reloaded photos out of public view.Should i leave it that way until some clarification is forthcoming about whether my content is acceptably "safe"?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's always been my understanding (based on information from Rippie in AFM that TV photos need to be rated one notch up - so safe becomes moderate and moderate needs to be restricted. As I recall that advice was based on private correspondence between Rippie and top level staff.
I can understand Flickr's concern to some extent - they need to take into account the values of many different countries and cultures, some of which view TV as a perversion. Dealing with so many differing legal systems (some of which are very restrictive) is a legal nightmare.
Having said that - I hope Heather.1967 continues - it's a fight that should be fought. However depressing it gets, carry on. But remember that you're not fighting against the majority of Flickr staff (most of whom have no problems) but against a system - so keep it civil but keep on going.
I'll add my voice to yours - as whilst I have no interest in TV photos I also have no interest in bunnies, oversaturated sunsets or (sorry Hairlover) cats but I don't want to see them all banned.
I would vote for bad HDR to be banned, along with any photo containing me ;-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I guess that depends on what you want. You are in a catch 22 situation at the moment until such time as Flickr staff make up their minds. You say you put your photos out there in order to be seen. To share. Yet, you are now "hiding" it by not adding tags.
On the other hand, if Flickr sets your account to "restricted" people outside of Flickr will not be able to see your photos, and by keeping a low profile, at least you reduce the chance of that happening.
Regardless, within the next few days your new account will be reviewed by Flickr. Here's hoping sanity and humanity prevails.
If I were you, I would probably add the tags. You have done nothing to be ashamed of. Do what you believe is right, regardless of what anyone thinks. And if they set it to restricted again ... well, let's just hope that doesn't happen, but then we fight again.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Ncedisa:
OK i'll add the tags.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Heather.1967 edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
I know. And it's wrong on so many levels.
Flickr staff are just people. Individuals making individual judgement calls. At the moment, it seems to be the luck of the draw whether you draw a "open-minded" individual or not.
I too can see what a nightmare all the different countries' legal systems can create.
In effect, allowing TG content on Flickr may cause entire nations from being barred from using Flickr at all - even the "safe" content - because of their governments' policies. The average person does not have all that much input in government policies, so is it that fair then that they be completely excluded because a "few" TG's would like to have their content shown? No.
But declaring your content "moderate" or "restricted" and making you (and others like you) feel as if you are somehow deprived is, in my mind, even more wrong.
My own moral stance would be that TG "safe" photos should be left "safe", regardless of entire nations being in danger of being barred from using Flickr - simply because it's the right thing to do and I cannot condone such discrimination.
But that's just me. I am not Flickr staff and I (thankfully) do not have to make that call. I wish them lots of wisdom in making a clear policy on this matter. Moreover, I truly hope that those governments with their narrow-minded policy makers see the wrong in what they are doing and bring about some change.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
OK i'll add the tags.
You go Girl! :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I believe in the past all TG Accounts were seen the same regardless of content. The whole scene has now evolved in that there are clear distinctions between those doing it for 'kicks' and those being seen out and about living their lives that way and presenting themselves as cisgirls do. To that end, I think it has become important for Flickr to also acknowledge these differences and evaluate peoples' Accounts with that in mind. Hopefully, most of the former will moderate their own Accounts anyway because the pictures usually tell the story.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amber~Jo edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 I hope that, even if they are doing it just for the kicks, if it doesn't show nudity etc. it should be "safe". Who are we to judge? :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ncedisa:
I agree, but if 'fetish' content, irrespective of whether nudity is involved or not, is still part of Flickr's reviewing procedure for classifying safety levels...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then a man putting on a dress should be de-classified as a "fetish" by Flickr. :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Amber~Jo I'm sorry, but I disagree. Any man putting on women's clothing can be seen as a "fetish" - and as with nudity Flickr draw the line at the action, not the intention.
There's absolutely no way that Flickr can differentiate between someone who wears women's clothing because they get a sexual kick out of it, and those who merely do it because they feel more comfortable. The photos can often be very similar.
To me, it's simple. If a TV is posting photos with bare bums, it's moderate. If pubic areas are visible then it's restricted. If not, it's safe.
I don't think that this is the way that Flickr has acted in the past, I hope that waferbaby's comment above means that Flickr are thinking about changing their views.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What about anyone who has gone as far as transitioning ie a woman trapped in mans body?Surely not a fetish.For me i haven't transitioned but it's still a matter of identity, so much more than a case of feeling more comfortable.That should be apparent from my photo's and profile information,no bare flesh or underwear,just me living my life.In the UK we have the Gender Recognition Act 2004 whereby one can officially change their gender,acquire a new birth certificate without having hormones or an operation simply by living in the role of the opposite sex for two years.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Heather.1967 edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Heather.1967 No, to me it's irrelevant whether someone is straight TV, gay TV, transgendered or a panto dame.
What you are and who you are does not matter, what you post does. It should not matter if you are black, white, male, female, asian, gay, straight, bisexual, or just not sure.
Flickr should treat the photos the same as they have to treat their employees. Without any prejudice. :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry Rid@ully you are quite right.In the 21st century any form of discrimination should not be welcome on Flickr or anywhere else for that matter
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, this thread's been open over a week now. How's the serious internal consideration going?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Come on Flickr - today would be a good day to stop fucking this up.
The question in front of you is "Do we want our company to institutionalise discrimination based on nothing more than bigotry?".
It is not supposed to be a difficult question.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And another week goes past.
So, next time this comes up, and it will, I take it we're all clear that the answer is a resounding chorus of 'Yes, they are'.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Any man putting on women's clothing can be seen as a "fetish"
this is a ridiculous statement.
do you think that anti-violent demonstrations like "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" are "fetish"?
www.google.com/search?q=Walk+a+Mile+in+Her+Shoes&hl=e...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
loupiote Not in the slightest. I said that it can be seen as a fetish, not that it should be. Hence the quotation marks around "fetish".
I'm on Heather's side in this, I've been as helpful to Heather as I can given my limited abilities both in public and private. Have you read her response to me? Have you read the thread? Or just taken a quote out of context?
I'm with The Ewan in keeping this thread going and pressing for an answer, but attacking me gains nothing save to make me think "why bother?" I bother because I care about equality.
Look at my reply here and Heather's reponse. Or contact Heather and ask if I've been abusive or helpful.
Try looking, before insulting me.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sorry, i misunderstood you. i didn't mean to attack you, and i certainly did not insult you (i was referring only to the statement (that i misunderstood), not to you, since i don't know you. i said "the statement is ridiculous", not "you are stupid", that's very different. and i apologize for that.
"Any man wearing woman's clothing can be seen as fetish"... by ignorant narrow-minded bigots, yes.
i think we agree that flickr's policies with regard to this issue needs to be improved.
and i don't see any problem with "fetish" as long as the photos, in themselves, do not break any rule.
i.e. a photostream with only photos of women's shoes, even if it appears to belong to a male member, should not be treated any different from a photostream with only photos of sunsets. the same goes for photos of drag queens or transgenders or crossdressers.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 loupiote (Old Skool) Thanks for the apology - a misunderstanding is easy to get in a charged atmosphere.
I think we agree - the rules must be applied equally irrespective of gender, sexuality or race.
The Ewan is fighting hard for this as well, it's good to know that you are too.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Flickr administration has to decide who they want to appease and openly state the company's view on these matters. I believe this is an American company (correct me if wrong) and should therefore follow the laws regarding discrimination against a group that are applicable in the USA. If they are discriminating against a group to appease other countries what's next. Making photos depicting symbols of the Jewish faith restricted to appease those countries that would be offended? All photos or dialogue from the gay community being restricted to appease homophobes? Perhaps photos of the Dali Lama or use of the word Tibet be restricted so as not to lose the Chinese business? Flickr's rule is (to paraphrase) no nudity/sexual = Safe. They made the rules and they should stand behind them. Either that or state publically that certain groups will be judged in a harsher manner so that the world will know of the discrimination practised by Flickr.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
WJB1961 edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 well, flickr already treats as "moderate" or "restricted" some content other than nudity / sex.
they decide what falls under the umbrella of "objectionable content".
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's true, of course, but I think it would be a stretch even for Flickr to assert that the mere visible existence of trans people is 'objectionable'.
Though, really, that is the net result of the current approach.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, let's knock this silliness on the head before we all get busy with Christmas stuff. Can we start next year not being monumentally discriminatory?
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Apparently not :-(
So, that's 2+ months of 'serious internal attention' and counting. It's almost as if waferbaby was just fobbing us off with any old nonsense.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What makes a "fetish"? It all seems so arbitrary to me. Is flickr's obsession with fetishes a fetish or is it just an obsession? I get people with various fetishes favouriting my photos quite often, and while I certainly don't share their fascination in those particular images, their interests don't disturb me in the least. I find the 'human condition' wonderfully fascinating in its diversity. Lighten up flickr !
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have this same issue, ended up over here during a search when discussing this with someone. Same boat, nothing clearly offensive, but I got restricted. I emailed support to ask "I understand the need for restrictions, and the rules, but not what I did. I'm missing something. What did I do, so that I may correct it?"
The responses I got back were clearly form responses, with my emails not even read. I showed a 100% willingness to comply with the rules, though I did not know how. In response, I am not restricted for 30 days and still have no been given a reasonable email from the poorly named "Customer Care Center."
I may not agree with the rules, but I will abide if I know them. I don't agree with applying rules that aren't written, but I imagine that is the prerogative of a private corporation. But I really can't comprehend the poor quality of support. Being told "go figure out what you did wrong, fix it, then come back" is a poor way to handle any matter.
I believe I'll be taking a different solution though. There are many corporations that provide this service, but with better support, I believe I will be moving to those. It is sad, since I've used Yahoo! services for longer than I can recall, yet will now part ways because of a bad support experience.
I hope forum threads like this at least bring to the fore-front that telling people rules, applying those rules, and having quality support (instead of seemingly a turing test) are necessary for services such as these.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 dsny428:
You may find this group helpful
www.flickr.com/groups/unsafe/
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
waferbaby:
1) We're taking this matter very seriously, and giving it the attention (internally) it deserves before responding in detail.
[...]
Posted 3 months ago.
Flickr's staff may or may not be transphobic, but they are clearly very slow of thinking.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads