Comments on: Flickr = Censorship, Part II http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html Sat, 26 May 2012 02:31:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Asuncion Hoggatt http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-330946 Asuncion Hoggatt Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:21:23 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1129#comment-330946 What a good article you wrote. Good share. But I am having trouble with this rss. I didn't succeed to subscribe. Is there anybody else experiencing similar issue with this RSS? What a good article you wrote. Good share. But I am having trouble with this rss. I didn’t succeed to subscribe. Is there anybody else experiencing similar issue with this RSS?

]]> By: taratata http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-7280 taratata Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:53:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1129#comment-7280 Mr Thomas. Why don't you stop criticizing flickr and take care of your own biz, which one could call a wreck at this point. Mr Thomas. Why don’t you stop criticizing flickr and take care of your own biz, which one could call a wreck at this point.

]]> By: John Swifty http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-7281 John Swifty Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:00:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1129#comment-7281 Oh my, and after saying you were going to calm down and not be so hot headed about things.<br /><br />This looks like things going right and things going wrong.<br /><br />On the right side, it seems that Violets stream "tripped the automated system's prude sensors", which I'm sure are there for a good reasons. Then her account got reviewed, made public again with reviewed photos marked up. A sensible review system, apparently working. It probably captures plenty that *should* be pulled from the site.<br /><br />On the wrong side, maybe their "prude sensors" are too sensitive and the feedback given to the user, Violet in this case no informative enough as to what just happened and what to expect. Bad feedback to the user.<br /><br />However, as I understand it from reading the forums over at Flickr, this is a fairly new system they have in place. It's fair to expect glitches with any new system, you of all people must understand that. I hardly think that in this case there are members of the Flickr team going around censoring people for the hell of it. There's just a new system with bugs in it or whatever that has yet to be fine tuned.<br /><br />May be "Flickr = slightly over excited automated flesh detector" is more along the lines.<br /><br />Your Zooomr system had a bug in it which exposed everyones private photos to the pubic. With the advice to "just go and mark everything private again". But that was hardly "Zooomr = quite the opposite of Censorship", you brushed that off as a bug, why not make a blog post about "Photosharing site exposed users private photos for everyone to see"?<br /><br />Probably because you *know* it's a bug because you're inside the system. In this case you have no idea why what happened happened, but it's probably just a good old bumps in a new system.<br /><br />But then that's not quite as headline grabbing is it and you just can't resist it. Oh my, and after saying you were going to calm down and not be so hot headed about things.

This looks like things going right and things going wrong.

On the right side, it seems that Violets stream “tripped the automated system’s prude sensors”, which I’m sure are there for a good reasons. Then her account got reviewed, made public again with reviewed photos marked up. A sensible review system, apparently working. It probably captures plenty that *should* be pulled from the site.

On the wrong side, maybe their “prude sensors” are too sensitive and the feedback given to the user, Violet in this case no informative enough as to what just happened and what to expect. Bad feedback to the user.

However, as I understand it from reading the forums over at Flickr, this is a fairly new system they have in place. It’s fair to expect glitches with any new system, you of all people must understand that. I hardly think that in this case there are members of the Flickr team going around censoring people for the hell of it. There’s just a new system with bugs in it or whatever that has yet to be fine tuned.

May be “Flickr = slightly over excited automated flesh detector” is more along the lines.

Your Zooomr system had a bug in it which exposed everyones private photos to the pubic. With the advice to “just go and mark everything private again”. But that was hardly “Zooomr = quite the opposite of Censorship”, you brushed that off as a bug, why not make a blog post about “Photosharing site exposed users private photos for everyone to see”?

Probably because you *know* it’s a bug because you’re inside the system. In this case you have no idea why what happened happened, but it’s probably just a good old bumps in a new system.

But then that’s not quite as headline grabbing is it and you just can’t resist it.

]]> By: Lane Hartwell http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-7282 Lane Hartwell Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:07:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1129#comment-7282 Sign me up as one of those people who is getting sick of watching out for the "community", which generally means "other people's kids". Pretty much all my work is photodocumentary and yes, there are shots that show nudity and activities that some might be offended by. I have ALWAYS made those private so as not to trip the censorship wire at flickr, but I'll tell you, I don't enjoy having to do that, nor do I think it's right or fair. I pay for my account and as a paying customer I want to show ALL of my photos - if I choose to do that. It's your job to watch your kids, or click back if you find something offensive. Violet Blue hardly has an offensive or pornographic photostream. I don't get it. Sign me up as one of those people who is getting sick of watching out for the “community”, which generally means “other people’s kids”. Pretty much all my work is photodocumentary and yes, there are shots that show nudity and activities that some might be offended by. I have ALWAYS made those private so as not to trip the censorship wire at flickr, but I’ll tell you, I don’t enjoy having to do that, nor do I think it’s right or fair. I pay for my account and as a paying customer I want to show ALL of my photos – if I choose to do that. It’s your job to watch your kids, or click back if you find something offensive. Violet Blue hardly has an offensive or pornographic photostream. I don’t get it.

]]> By: Rich http://thomashawk.com/2007/06/flickr-censorship-part-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-7283 Rich Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:13:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1129#comment-7283 Looks like you got what you wanted. Her account was not deleted. Her photos were no longer blocked. It looks like it was given thoughtful review. <br /><br /><i>1. Any deletions should not be permanent.<br /><br />2. All users should have a 48 hour period to dispute conflicts when Yahoo thinks censorship is in order.<br /><br />3. All disputes should involve a competent, thoughtful, review.</i> Looks like you got what you wanted. Her account was not deleted. Her photos were no longer blocked. It looks like it was given thoughtful review.

1. Any deletions should not be permanent.

2. All users should have a 48 hour period to dispute conflicts when Yahoo thinks censorship is in order.

3. All disputes should involve a competent, thoughtful, review.

]]>