LAist: Flickr's new censorship system

Azazelle

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:33:44 -0800

Great news from Flickr! The resources of his level should upgrade its rules regularly according to user's needs. (c)Links Exchange

guest

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:21:25 -0800

If I were you, I'd cancel my account and look for a censorless alternative like http://bayimg.com I have been where you are, and I decided that as an artist I cannot accept the corrupt and completely random behaviour of an organization lik Yahoo! (Flickr's daddy) My choice was to use a download tool (http://flickrslideshow.fateback.com/) to get all my photo's back from my account and start over somewhere else. Maybe even simply use the $48 dollars a year to get a simple hosting package and use freely available open sourced software to manage your photo's. There are lots of different programs out there that will suit your needs, I'm sure. WordPress, Movable Type for weblogging, Coppermine and Gallery by Menalto for managing your photo's. Censorship needs to be fought on *all* fronts. We will lose our freedom of speech if this continues.

SoE

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:45:36 -0800

You might want to check out www.flickr.com/groups/againstcensorship/ because flickr now deems everyone in Germany, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea as so immature that they cannot be allowed to turn off safe search. A search for pictures tagged "sexy" will turn up roughly 100.000 pictures less than on a US-based account. And while it is known that Singapore and Hong Kong have their issues with censoring there is no good conclusion why Germany and South Korea should also be included. Anyway, censoring should be fought in every country!

Ronda

Tue, 22 May 2007 16:59:56 -0800

That's the lamest reply I've seen. Yahoo is going down. They've been doing everything wrong the past couple of years. And it only gets worse. The saddest part is to see Flickr go down. I hope Google improves Picasa soon. I wouldn't think twice about switching.

sarchi

Tue, 22 May 2007 02:45:31 -0800

now the dust has settled a little bekka's case mainly due to the fact that stewart was on his vacation at the time new policies will be introduced to improve communications

Meo Whous

Mon, 21 May 2007 14:30:00 -0800

I don't Flickr is erring on the side of caution, I think they're erring on the side of a quick, reflex reaction. The filtering stuff I think was invented in order to fix the flaws in their old NIPSA scheme, but it still has many of the same flaws in the area of malicious behavior. Actually, neither form at all helped prevent non-malicious, accidental flagging as offensive, nor is it at all easy to find out what the consequences might be so that you don't behave frivolously and get someone in trouble. The advice I've gotten from Flickr staff about this issue have been superficial and condescending. I suspect we're all rats in some data-mining experiment.

Paul

Mon, 21 May 2007 03:41:09 -0800

I think this is an interesting case and is just one of the problems faced by Flickr. Looks like for the moment, they are erring on the side of caution. Will be interesting to see how this one develops.. Paul @ www.photographyvoter.com

q

Sun, 20 May 2007 18:46:00 -0800

malingering, you should include your comment post (30) on how others have flagged your photos, and that it's not merely 'censored' by flickr because of its content. flickr has been getting more and more users and with that comes people who are malicious. it's going to be tough for flickr to review each and every flag but hopefully they will implement a better system soon.

malingering

Sun, 20 May 2007 11:35:12 -0800

Your photos are stupid and offensive. They should ban you for good. Great argument. We should ban all stupid and offensive people from expressing themselves. In fact, we should reconsider if they're even worthy of participating in society. Maybe we should put them into camps or something. In fact we should do that we everyone we disagree with. What a fabulous idea, I bet that's never been done before!

Just Joe

Sun, 20 May 2007 07:42:25 -0800

The thing that people seem to be forgetting here is that Flickr is not a democracy - and that they aren't bound by some sort of moral code. There is no 'due process' in Flickr, it's a service that you use, free of charge. That said, if they offend too many people - they will lose their audience, and open up the playing field for a better service to come along and steal their market - but that's beside the point. There's no implicit "contract" between you and Flickr, and you have no "rights" when things don't go your way. I will admit, your post was funny - and there seems to be no reason for what happened to you...

Berndt

Sun, 20 May 2007 04:12:25 -0800

Amazing to see what amounts to neing "appropriate". Especially if what's "approrpiate" and "art" to one person is "inappropriate" amd "offensive" to another. If we then let things like the deep political divide in the US ("You're Republican - I hate you" - "You're Democrat - I hate you even more") creep into this then there's no end to censorship. What bothers me most here is that Flickr is a commercial service - and yet they seem to hold the censor's own personal values and political opinions higher than customer satisfaction. This is exactly the "We Know What's Best For You" attitude that turn governments into totalitarian regimes. If we allow this to happen in commercial enterprises - or worse, accept it as being "normal" - then it's only a small step to accept this as an acceptable way of life in society as well. Scary.

They were right

Sun, 20 May 2007 03:01:05 -0800

Your photos are stupid and offensive. They should ban you for good.

Jacob Beauregard

Sun, 20 May 2007 01:47:38 -0800

Content filtering systems are very, very unreliable. There's no such thing as a catch-all, and there's no such thing as a catch-only. I think the fairest way would be to cache questionable content and put it on review, not removing anything until it's reviewed. Of course some people prefer the not adding anything until it's reviewed (when your reputation as a company depends on your content, for instance). I guess this system is kind of half-way between. Obviously, however, no one has thrown has thrown up many well-formed heuristic checks, just trying to review you more often. Wow, I'm definitely a computer scientist.

Charlie C. Tan

Sat, 19 May 2007 22:09:44 -0800

I Blogged this on corporate-leadership-culture.blogspot.com ebusiness-ecommerce.blogspot.com Thanks....

Charlie C. Tan

Sat, 19 May 2007 21:43:35 -0800

Marcus jones

Sat, 19 May 2007 20:21:27 -0800

Flckr now owned by YAHOO...

malingering

Sat, 19 May 2007 18:13:01 -0800

I think the important thing was that my photos were restricted NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT, but because people were flagging them because they don't like ME. If it were the content, and I were offered an explanation then fine, but this was a reaction to people's petty attempts at revenge, and that's what concerns me. I do have my own site and my own domain name, but I like the idea of the Flickr community and I've learned a great deal about photography as well as perspective from being a part of it. I have no problem sticking to my own blog, but I would miss the community aspect of things and that's why I'm not taking my photos and running away. After I brought this up, several people found their photos were restricted, photos of trees and children and flowers. There's clearly something wrong with the system and it needs to be evaluated. If Flickr decided that the streetphoto type images I post are inappropriate, then I would live with that. But they did this because of people who were trying to get to me. And that's the difference.

Thomas Hawk

Sat, 19 May 2007 17:58:21 -0800

[I am CEO of Zooomr] Malingering, Thanks for telling your story as well. Even though higher profile cases like yours and Rebekka's, Kris Krug's (Flickr took down a cease and desist letter he got from a photographer who was ripping him off), mine etc. get attention, just imagine how many people this happens to all the time at Flickr who have no recourse. The problem is that Flickr just does not take their responsibility of censoring seriously. They censor willy nilly and your case is but another example. When it's a high enough profile case they fix and issue but another hollow apology as they have done in your case. Flickr says that in the future that they will err on the side of "caution" with regards to censorship but refuses to outline what steps they will specifically take to ensure that they follow through with their promises. Heather Champ, Flickr's Community manager says that because you agree to Flickr's terms of service that when they delete your stuff that it "is not and cannot be viewed as censorship." Heck, they refuse to even admit that they censored me despite sending me a threatening email threating to shut down my account. What makes it worse is that rather than have a serious debate about how to make Flickr a better and less censored place, Flickr Chief Stewart Butterfield would rather write PR spin comments on my blog "challenging" me to write that child porn would be ok into Zooomr's TOS. You know I have a blog on blogger (owned by Google). I'm sure somewhere in their TOS I've agreed to give them some power over my blog. But you know what? If blogger ever came and deleted a blog post I wrote I'd be just as pissed. Blogger is every bit a platform for ideas as Flickr is. Thanks for blogging your story and raising more awareness on this important topic. Power to the people. Thomas Hawk

Andrew

Sat, 19 May 2007 16:37:53 -0800

Well two of the photos have license plates visible in them, which seems like fair ground for restriction.

Chris

Sat, 19 May 2007 13:47:30 -0800

I wouldn't dare use a yahoo company for anything I would be afraid to lose. Three years ago they deemed my yahoo hosted web page inappropriate and locked me out of my whole account, but continued to bill me for hosting. I lost everything, my site, my yahoo page, my wallet, my bill pay. I will never ever trust them again. And while I do have a flicker account, I don't keep any photos there.

Tantric Tim

Sat, 19 May 2007 12:25:48 -0800

Malingering Good for your ....i mean it has become a nightmare...i got so scared after they made me UNSAFE...that i actually deleted many photos and quit many groups i used to belong to.....as i did not want to get my account deleted! I think i will take solace in the fact that there are people like you who wont put up with this Orwellian bullshit........keep up the good fight! Best Regards Tim www.people.com/tantrictim

Michael Savoy

Sat, 19 May 2007 11:47:23 -0800

What Flickr has done is simply a matter of protecting itself from the same sort of liability suffered by CBS when forced to come up with a considerable amount of money to settle a case brought by someone who felt ridiculed in a David Letterman comedy bit a few years back. The regularly appearing comedy bit which featured silly multiple choice questions juxtaposed alongside people filmed randomly and unknowingly was quite funny but occasionally rude and insulting many of which venturing an area where it put CBS' vulnerable to liability. The case involved a spectator,an older woman with a dowdy matronly look, attending the annual tennis tournament held in Queens, NY as the merciless butt of Letterman's inccesant ridicule at her expense.the camera focusing on an woman voraciously chomping on a peach in as unflattering manner imaginable, repeatedly shown again and again throughout the sketch. The story of the woman's lawsuit and CBS out of court settlement making news as the time.

BillyWarhol

Sat, 19 May 2007 11:42:21 -0800

Rock On Malingering* Yeah having Photos deemed Unsafe kinda Sucks or having 1 Photo Deleted like Rebekka did - but these Pale in comparison to the Travesty of Gail Orenstein* Yeah it's Sad n Pathetic* Twits + Hypocrites are Flickr!! Whattabout Gail Orenstein + Flickr Deleting her entire Account & amazing Body of Work of over 3,400 Photographs + over 1 Million Views + over 20,000 Comments from all her Flickr Fans!! A bloody outrage!! Gail's Work incorporated behind the scenes Photos of Strippers in their Work environment so yes that meant shots of bOObies but nothing Pornographic* She would post the Top World Headlines of the Day concerning things that All People should Care about like Bush's Illegal War in Iraq + the Pope banning Condoms for African Women etc. Like Rebekka said - this sparked lively Political + Social Discussion - some of the Smartest insights to be found anywhere on Flickr & poof it's all gone!! A bloody outrage!! Even Professional Recreationalist who tried to setup a Flickr Customer Union had the Group Deleted + all the comments!! ridiculous* It goes right to the Top of Flickr with Stewart ButterMyAsshole + his SheWolf of the SS sidekick Heather Chump! Their Arrogance knows No Bounds!! I was actually gleeful with scheudenfreude to hear Miss Chump got the Boot from JPG Mag!! Pompous Twit!! ;)) atanyrate i've been NIPSA + none of my Photos show up Publicly on Flickr for over a year - yeah i've posted about 12 Nudes (fer a Joke) but I also Speak my Mind - last I heard Freedom of Speech was still a good thing in America!! The ONLY reason any of us still stay at Flickr is cuz all our Friendz our there & frankly it is still an awesome Web2.0 website* Otherwise people would be over to Zoomr in a heartbeat* Cheers Hawk + Malingering + Everybody fer having the Courage to SPEAK UP!! Billy Warhol ;)) SILENCE IS NOT AN OPTION* Peace*

Christian Fundamentalists

Sat, 19 May 2007 10:25:31 -0800

Don't blame Flickr. It's the crybaby Christain watchgroups that want to shove their ideals on the rest of us.

doggo

Sat, 19 May 2007 10:18:42 -0800

Uh, yeah, okay, you can censor me when my account is free. But if I'm gonna pay to use flickr, they damn well better leave my work alone. Man, oh man, what is going on with this society. If it offends someone, our first inclination is to censor? That's it, I'm posting a photo of Piss Christ on flickr! (Er, probably not, I don't even like that piss, er, piece, piss or not)

Gee

Sat, 19 May 2007 09:48:35 -0800

More and more websites are doing this. If you don't like these restrictions, start your own service or find another one.

Gee

Sat, 19 May 2007 09:44:59 -0800

More and more websites are doing this. If people don't like these restrictions, go find another service that doesn't. Losing customers will have more of an impact.

Tim

Sat, 19 May 2007 09:32:55 -0800

Why is everyone so surprised? Yahoo! bought Flickr some time ago. You're all still acting like Flickr is some little mom-and-pop site, when the real news is that Yahoo! has decided to drop their existing photo service in favor of Flickr. You can continue to imagine that your photos are being managed by an innovative Web 2.0 site, when in reality you're being managed by the future Yahoo! Photos.

wskrz

Sat, 19 May 2007 09:10:21 -0800

To make the whole censorship issue even stupider, Flickr marked one of my private pictures of my 20 month old playing with toilet paper as "restricted." First off, the kid is sitting on the floor, fully clothed and is trying to put toilet paper back on a roll. Second, it was private! No one could see it (you can now) and two other pictures I had taken the same day of a sunset that were also marked private were also marked as "restricted." Be forewarned - Sunsets and toddlers are now the new Flickr moral menace. What bullshit.

SteveC

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:53:15 -0800

Their explanation is pretty unclear as to what exactly "attention from the community" means. It does not necessarily mean people are complaining or marking the photos offensive. From reading the Flickr response, it sounds like they could just have an automatic valve that cuts a user off if their photos become suddenly popular. If there are recurrent spikes of popularity maybe the staff is just lazy and does not bother looking on the assumption that that is the same pattern of activity as porn so it too must be porn.

canadiaphile

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:44:16 -0800

And I thought Canadians were more tolerant of free speech than the American fear mongrels. Wha happened, flickr?

Ben Dover

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:37:40 -0800

Wow, glad you pointed this out. Especially since they don't own the website you're posting pictures on. How dare they take photos off their website that they allow everyone to use free of charge! Oh wait, they do own the website, and they have every right in the world to do whatever they want with whatever is posted on it. If I were you I would expect more than an apology, especially since you pay them so much money to use their site. Demand a refund. Moron.

Ben Dover

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:36:33 -0800

BPG

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:33:43 -0800

Why don't you rather focus on all the good things flickr does? They outweigh the things they get wrong by a zillion to 1.

Jason Rappaport

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:24:17 -0800

This is why I use my own website for hosting photos and sharing photos. You can moderate it yourself, and there's no higher management than you to censor your images. Unless, of course, you want to restrict your own access. Livin' the independent life ;).

eggzakt

Sat, 19 May 2007 08:00:18 -0800

A lot of this censorship comes not from the supposed power-hungry photo editors as postulated above, but rather from all of us. Our greedy society has become litigious to the point of insanity. People will sue for anything they can for the cash. When you photograph people in public, that puts you on a fine line between art and invasion of privacy. While I feel Flickr may have painted the censorship with too wide a brush, they were right to look out for themselves and the public in whole. You included faces and license plates in your photos. If you watch TV you'll see all kinds of things fuzzed out for legal reasons. If you watch the news, you'll find several stories of people being questioned or arrested for taking pictures of public places (one event happening at the Santa Monica Pier) due to the knee-jerk reaction still with us from September 11th. Technically that is censorship, but not in the way you have presented your case. You're playing in Flickr's yard. You've gotta follow their rules. Unless of course you want to open a site of your own that no one will notice, That's your fine line to ponder.

Doug

Sat, 19 May 2007 07:58:52 -0800

Flickr only apologises / fixes things when they get loud enough complaints back at them. What a way to treat (usually) paying customers.

John

Sat, 19 May 2007 07:49:01 -0800

I think what they are trying to say is that they didn't get complaints, rather that they have an automated way to tag pornography, but don't have to actually look at the pornography. The Algorithm, is that an image gets higher than normal traffic, from a certain type of viewer. Then it must be pornography, therefor they mark it restricted. But they found in your case that it doesn't work, your images have wide appeal into the marketplace even though it isn't pornography, congratulations, they are marking your account as being that rare of an account, were your popular kitties can be watched without harm. No biggie, now that they have fixed it.

Robert Hooker

Sat, 19 May 2007 06:27:06 -0800

Gail Orenstein, Google her, had her entire site deleted by Flickr without warning. 1,000,000 views and 10,000 of discourse on politics.

tony

Fri, 18 May 2007 22:09:59 -0800

although i want to hate them for their reasoning, i have seen it a bunch of times - person gets power - person gets complaints about someone - person thinks that the only thing to do with power is to censor - person forgets that you can always tell the complainer(s) to shut the fuck up glad youre back and uncensored on Yahoor hopefully LAist and Digg helped get this resolved as quick as it did

andy

Fri, 18 May 2007 21:47:28 -0800

still disturbed by the "feel compelled to 'do something'" rationalization in Flickr's quasi-apology. This country is no longer run in any part by Jack Valenti, nor should the so-called "moral majority" be given any credibility in their efforts to shield good people from reality. Malingering, Michelle says they "owe you an explanation." I hope you print it here when and if you get it. Thomas Hawk did Flickr -- and its community -- a huge favor by cross-posting photos there. After all, he's the CEO of Zoomr. For a site that relies on user-generated content, it would be nice to see a little more respect for the user/creator at least look before you "do something."

lepindahood

Fri, 18 May 2007 19:31:48 -0800

great post! i've always liked the idea that you can share anything on flickr, but as a photographer i don't put photos up that i don't want people stealing (even though they aren't supposed to). as for censoring people, i hope flickr can get it together. i want to see more pics of uggs and butt cracks.

ben bang

Fri, 18 May 2007 16:28:57 -0800

Shit, I was just about to leave buzznet for flickr. Fuck that. Nothing makes a lethal dose of emo go down easier than the threat of censorship...

timmay!!!!!

Fri, 18 May 2007 15:26:56 -0800

time to return to buzznet

Meo Whous

Fri, 18 May 2007 15:09:33 -0800

Dammit, I went to that guy's blog and flickr hoping for some porn, and I couldn't find a single salacious thing--not even a quick link to kitten photos! I DON'T HAVE ALL DAY FOR THIS KIND OF THING!!

wskrz

Fri, 18 May 2007 14:47:26 -0800

Well, your cats are obscenely cute.... :-) You've got my support and the support of a lot of other Flickr users, Mal. It looks like some asshole specifically targeted you and your Explore pictures. I didn't join Flickr for it to turn into the MySpace of photography, where other photographers do stupid shit to other people's pictures just out of spite. That's immature. I'm considering asking for a refund of my account that I just re-upped for the year. And I would suggest to anyone that's thinking of paying for a Pro Account on Flickr to hold off for now, until Flickr fixes their filtering system so that this crap doesn't happen. Unless, of course, you want the same thing to happen to you and your pictures of your kids or your pets somewhere down the line.