> We also manually removed pictures which were identified as containing harmful content, such as violent, offensive, obscene or equivalent undesirable pictures which may shock anyone.
> We do not allow sexually themed or suggestive content that serves little or no purpose other than to solicit an erotic or shocking response, particularly where that content is amplified by its placement in profiles or other social contexts. This includes: ...Pornographic content
Now on the other hand this wasn't actually pornographic content, it was links to pornographic content and their TOS doesn't really make it clear that linking is not allowed.
what in Allah's name is wrong with people these days, it's as if a mind virus has rotten all brains
> are otherwise unfit for publication.
This is the internet, everything is publishable.
How can users + merchants put pressure on these companies to get their head out of their ass? Maybe a mass complete withdrawal of funds will damage their cash reserves? What if we actively start badmouthing them to users and send them to competitors?
I am willing to dissuade my game users from using paypal and letting them know about the changes by adding a relevant disclaimer before the payment step. Anobody have a relevant text?
The response should have been better filters for illegal content, not cutting off "adult" content. (" because in my opinion, there's nothing adulty in a fantasy artwork from the 70s which, the horror, shows both male and female uncovered breasts.)
I'm not making a comment on the morality of the images only that some automatic content filters might consider it pornography which is usually not allowed in corporate environments
Bans on adult content are almost universal on mainstream services. Somehow this is never considered censorship by the tech community. It’s only when they start to ban other content that anyone cares.
> “Do not publish sexually explicit or pornographic images or videos. Writing about adult topics is permitted as long as it is not accompanied by sexually explicit images or videos, or any material that promotes or depicts unlawful or inappropriate sexual acts with children or animals. Additionally, we do not allow content that drives traffic to commercial pornography.
> We do allow naturalistic and documentary depictions of nudity (such as an image of a breastfeeding infant), as well as depictions of nudity that serve a clear educational, scientific, or artistic purpose.”
I don’t understand the fuss being made. It is clearly stated that sexual content is not allowed.
Just because sharing pornography isn’t illegal does not mean that it should be allowed on every platform on which it is possible.
Instead of violating TOS of a service they could just use a service that doesn’t prohibit pornography?
> So far as I am aware, those are not problems anyone has.
Rare moment I can chime in to the opposite, this is an issue and there is an anti-sfw filter built in to some sites.
The use case is for imageboards primarily where trivial arguments spring up easily, the "fap time" sfw filters remove text only posts and posts without nsfw imagery.
"The adult entertainment industry is always, in many ways, on the forefront of technology, so if they can use something to their advantage, like an open hosting platform, they jump on it pretty quickly," he said. For Veoh the move to remove adult material was the right one, Mr. Shapiro said. "Nobody wants to be branded an adult Web site -- unless you're an adult Web site."
It sounds like the original commenter was saying that you should censor at a higher level (ie define boundaries for content, such as no porn or no commercial software cracks) and just remove all of those since they don't fit into the use case for your site and people can go elsewhere for them.
That way you're not subjectively censoring things, it either fits into the site or doesn't belong there.
Why is it that sexual content is so frowned upon in this space? If it's a content publishing platform I would understand that advertisers don't want that, but this is literally dictating people what is bad and good. I just don't understand this Puritan outrage with text-to-image porn generation.
"It's hardly "highly embarrassing" to ask them to remove a filter."
I completely disagree. Many people would be very embarrassed phoning up to have an adult content filter removed. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but that's a different thing altogether.
"company are now choosing to, by default, have sexually explicit content blocked"
But that's not what they're doing. They are choosing to block a wide range of material, some of it pornographic, some of it educational, some of it merely to do with gay and lesbian identities which some people find immoral (or to do with the occult, or computer security); and also to not actually block a lot of sexually explicit material that slips through the filter. And they are "choosing" to do this because Cameron said he would legally require them to do so if they didn't do it voluntarily.
A child wants to get advice about sexual abuse, but the site he visits is wrongly blocked by the filter, and that child doesn't have the authority to opt out.
A number of sites with adult content are blocked, even if they also have a lot of non-adult content. See, for example, Reddit.
The filters are supposed to be granular. But I'm not sure they are. Can someone say they don't mind breasts but don't want legs-apart insertion close-ups?
The idea is weird - People are stupid and computers are hard and people want to filter porn / other stuff, and so ISPs should offer customers the opportunity to filter stuff. Well, I guess that idea is okay, but it shows stunning ignorance of computing and some really bad assumptions about technology.
Why are tech companies so puritanical? Adult content is not immoral.
reply