What the hell is this?! Part 2

I am posting a new post because the thread of responses to my

previous post is now so long. First of all, my apologies if I came

across angry or bitter and I should have stated the suggested

solution along with my complaint. Solution (as so many others have

stated): Filter.

 

What all of you out there who have decided to tell me how to parent

my child don't understand is that I am prescreening what my child

sees. This is why it has become a burden to share photo.net with my

daughter. She usually sits next to me at the computer and I have to

ask her to walk away while I click the next page of photos. Back and

forth, back and forth. Then the accident happens. Because this

image "Ghost" was so large, it was the last one to load and I (yes,

my mistake) told my daughter to return before the coast was clear

since I thought all was okay.

 

So many of you seem to miss the point with your thought that

photo.net never claimed to be a family oriented site and therefore

doesn't have to be a responsible site. The point is that with a

simple filter, it could be a family oriented site and would probably

gain much more support.

 

I must have misjudged the community of photo.net. I see such

beautiful images. Now I am seeing the other side of the camera and

more often than not, it is a rather ugly picture.

 

The last response to my original post basically said I should go

somewhere else. This will make many of you happy, but I guess that

is exactly what I will have to do.

 

And this parting statement will really upset a lot of you...God bless

you and photo.net. (I'm sure now I'll be labeled as a religious nut

or right-winger, but so be it. Most of you have already labeled me

anyway.)

The issue is not creating a filter. That's easy, it's putting another check box below

"Image Manipulated." It's enforcing it. I have a hunch (correct me if I'm wrong) that

even a single error in filter usage would lead to another complaint of at least this

verbosity; which means that PN couldn't count on the photographers to do it, but

would have to use administrators for it... which means either less time handling other

site issues, or getting more people to do it.

 

Do you really not see that this is an endless chain of escalation where perfection is

impossible and a few people who are scared of flesh will always find a way to

complain?

There are many problems with a filter, Ray.

 

By filter, I assume what you're suggesting is that each image has a bit of data attached to it that says AM I OFFENSIVE? (Y/N)

 

So who answers that question?

Who answers that question for all the photos already here?

 

The photographer who uploads the picture will never find his own work offensive. If he did, he wouldn't be able to stomache creating it in the first place. James O'Neil makes a pretty valid point, I think, only it's one he's been espousing for so long he thinks nobody is listening anymore. How would you feel if your portraits of your daughter were labeled as the same category as "Ghost?"

 

How about we let democracy decide? In addition to the ratings question, there's another little checkbox for "Is this offensive?"

 

As I've recently ranted in another forum, I find being forced to look at poorly lit, center-auto-focused Family Outings To Dennys offensive (at least, offensive to find on photonet). How do you think they'd feel when their work was labelled such?

 

So how about a movie rating style system? G, PG, Pg-13, etc. Again, who decides? And how will this help me avoid looking at family photos? I mean, if you've got the right to decry my & Oneil's stuff as pornography (and I'm hoping a quick look at our respective portfolios show just how insane it is to categorize us together), why can't I complain that accidentally seeing portraits of your daughter while flipping through nudes is going to turn me into a pedophile?

 

And this still doesn't answer the question of what to do with all the pictures that are already on here.

 

Parental supervision is the only effective means of parental supervision. And, for the record, I wasn't trying to tell you how to raise your daughter. I was trying to get you to explain what is and isn't offensive to you, but figured that a direct approach would only be reacted to in anger.

I'm sorry if this issue drives you away from a resource that might otherwise offer you value and entertainment because it isn't appropriate at this stage for your daughter. [At this stage of both photo.net's life and your daughter's.]

 

I won't tell you how to raise your daughter. No one should, though it seems logical for people to express the idea of previewing content before she sees it (as you recognize).

 

Before repeating everything else I said in your original thread, I'll thank you for your blessings (I don't have to be a religious person to accept that they are meaningful to you) and wish you and your daughter well.

From Rays first post to the other thread.

 

"You supporters of trash hide behind that censorship defense as though it is some sort of sacred idol. All I care about is that my daughter (as well as all other little learners) and I have a place to learn about photography, not pornography. I'm sure this opinion of mine will not gain popular support. After all, there just aren�t too many people willing to stand up for what is right and what is wrong these days. AGAIN, please understand, I�m not talking about tasteful nudes such as Michael Cohen�s and Pedro G. Cases� work. But please, put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself if you would share crap like �Ghost� with your 7 year old daughter? If you would, then you need help. If you would not, then why accept it on photo.net?"

 

Ray, your post comes off as hate filled, extrememly unmovably opinionated, and just plain rude. I don't need to seek help, and am not a supporter of trash. I am sorry that I just don't have it in me to stand up for what is right, according to you. There is an abuse moderator who will look into this issue, send him an email about the images that you find that don't fit into the photo.net criteria. That is the system that is set up to deal with this issue, use it. You claim a filter would work, maybe, but how. You are leaving it up to the poster of the image to click a box. How mad are you going to be when you are in your "family oriented site" and you come across one nude post that wasn't labeled as such, and hence the filter didn't stop it from corrupting you and your children. I would love to see the rant about that. Ray, I could care less how you raise your children, really. But this isn't about you raising your children, you are trying to raise me too, and I don't like it. I also don't like being called names and being labeled as a "supporter of trash" who needs to seek help. FWIW, I find the image in question to be in bad taste and fairly pornographic in nature (bad pornography at that), but I would contact the abuse administrator and clue them into this image, instead of making accusatory, rude, and mean spirited threads for all to see. Two wrongs do not make a right and everything is not about the children. God bless you too, Ray, and I do hope this issue is resolved.

<i>"Two wrongs do not make a right and everything is not about the children."</i><BR>

Ahh...but one must not underestimate the dangerosity of such notionability, specially given the current political climatic in Washington B.C.<BR>

One man's decency is another one's jail sentence.

<i>One man's decency is another one's jail sentence.</i><BR>

...and I mean that in terms of "decency". Burkas, anyone?

Ray, I'd suggest letting the dust setttle first and see whats what before breaking camp.

 

For you others...Ray apologized for coming accross too upset. He was obviously typing while he was still angry. Cut him some slack. I am sure we have all done the same. No mercy at all!

 

As for the very lame arguments that a few images getting through the filter, means not having one at all... All I can say is thats as dumb a reason as there will ever be. Guess I also better hold off on buying those new truck tires as well. Some are defective ya know....nuts!

Well Ray, what I will say will probably be seen as worse than what you have said.

 

I let my daughter watch cable TV since she was able to change her own channels and we basically let her watch what she wanted. She goes to church inspite of my lack of desire to go and at school often hung around the "Wild girls" ( My daughter is not afraid of telling me the details and they could be a porn novel on their own).

 

 

She is now 19+ yrs old and doesn't believe in pre-marital sex ,hates smoking and drug use. (never having tried them)

 

 

I truly believe that any influence I had on her was when she asked me questions and I would respond how I felt. My impression was she knew what was good and bad for herself and noone needed to tell her.

 

 

My whole point of this is: Seeing random nudes on photonet will not corrupt her or anyone else especially if you are there for her when she needs you to answer a question that might be embarrassing, but better to hear the answer from you than someone else.

 

Better Fathers are guides not Dictators. (my own daughter).

 

and God bless you too.

Vincent,

It is not an argument against not having a filter. It is an argument for not having pissed people yelling about how him and offspring saw a boobie. A system exists now to get a pornographic image deleted from photo.net. Can't a person be suspended from photo.net if they continually break the rules? If the administrators decide to get a filter in place, fine, but don't think that you wont see nudity with the nudity filter in place.

 

It is funny you should bring up tires. I used to work selling tires in college and I can't tell you how many times I was yelled at, threatened, and even spit on because their tires blew. Of course half the time the other three tires only have 20lbs of pressure in them and the sidewalls are thin as paper from driving too long on underinflated tires, but hey, has to be my fault right.

Of course it was your fault Keith! It will always be YOUR fault....tires, nudes whatever! Never forget that........

 

When an image gets through the filter, you simply understand thats what living in an imperfect world means. It would sure beat what you see now. Agreed??

If an occasional nude image gets thru a filter it will be obvious. I would think (especially after seeing these posts) someone would quickly via email notify the poster probably before the administration of the site even found out about it.

To add to my post above. The only people who would know if a nude showed up would be the people using the filter. So in effect the system would police itself since I'm sure people would notify the person ASAP. Frequent,persistant and constant abusers (not just people who honestly forgot to check the box) could be banned.

To ADAM BERGER - I'm not "scared of flesh," and seeking improvement is not striving for perfection.

 

To AMUL KUMAR - I not sure how to respond to a person who's main concern is "being forced to look at poorly lit, center-auto-focused Family Outings To Dennys." To answer your question, "How do you think they'd feel when their work was labelled such (offensive)?" Well, just ask all of those people out there who have received a 1, 2 or 3 rating. See, we already have a mechanism for that.

 

To KEITH MERRILL - You wrote, "But this isn't about you raising your children, you are trying to raise me too, and I don't like it." You are a child. Grow up! If a movie is marked NC17, a rating that would tell me not to take my 7 year old to that film, does it keep you from seeing it? No! Does it trample on your rights? No! All it does is help me in raising my children. Does that hurt you? No!

 

To GABRIEL M. A. - A filter would be a jail sentence? Such drama! BTW, it's Washington, D.C.

 

To VINCENT K. TYLOR - Thanks. I will probably come across as too angry or hateful in this post too. I'm firm in my belief, I guess that makes me look angry. By the way, I chose to use "What the hell is this?!" because I knew it would get attention.

 

To ROBERT CHURA - Thanks for your input. "Better Fathers are guides not Dictators." I like your daughter's way of thinking. But does not the act of providing a choice (filter) compliment her statement rather than contradict it.

 

To GERALD WIDEN - You are exactly right. I just can't figure out why this is so difficult to understand.

 

To ALL - This is a healthy debate. While I will disagree with most of you, I respect your freedom. I love photo.net and see a need for improvement. What I am learning here is that while you expect me to be open minded about your artwork, you are not willing to be open minded about my suggestions. Put your emotions aside for a moment and think about it. A filter. If used correctly, does it not enhance your photo? "But wait, I don't want the fake look of that sunset sky that is too orange," you might say. My answer, don't use the filter. But would you wish to ban everyone from using filters? Of course not. Imagine a world were photo filters were not allowed? Crazy, huh? I am not for banning anything. However, many of you are....

<i>"A filter would be a jail sentence? Such drama! BTW, it's Washington, D.C."</i>

<BR>

No, a filter would not be a jail sentence; <i>imposing</i> views on others begets intolerance...but elaborating on the point would be off-topic, I guess. Sorry for not using "straight talk". Drama is what we make it out to be (i.e. "what the hell is this?!").<BR>

And yes, I know there's a city called "Washington, D.C." -- I wrote Washington <i>B</i>.C., there is no escaping that.<BR>

There is also no escaping "dangerosity", "notionability", and "climatic". ... ::crickets::

Ignoring the "morality) of the whole issue, the simple fact is that a filter will not work well enough for photo.net to be able to claim that the site is "family friendly". And if it can't be claimed to be so, why would anyone bother? To claim something when it isn't true is to open yourself up to more angry threads like this one (at the very least), or expensive lawsuits (at the very worst).

 

This site relies on the decency of it's members FAR too much for a simple "checkbox" to be effective. The only way to actually make photo.net be even 99% "child safe" would be to hire 15 people who did nothing but review image submissions and forum threads before they were posted. And that is not economically or logistically within photo.net's grasp.

 

To return to the "morality" if the issue, while they may agree with you that raising a child is a tricky business, I don't imagine that any of the founders/owners/controlling intrests of photo.net had the idea of a "G" rated website in mind when the site was created.

So much for the apology for being angry and bitter. I guess its only for the people who agree with you.

 

Ray wrote (first part is from me) - "But this isn't about you raising your children, you are trying to raise me too, and I don't like it." You are a child. Grow up!"

 

Its okay Ray, I am grown up, I have a father, I don't need another one. Filter or no filter, you are still being rude.

 

Gerald, I do believe that your solution will work, and if photo.net admin decided to make it so, so be it, but you would then have to define nudity to a bunch of people spread throughout the globe. As Ray pointed out in "What the Hell is this" part uno, "the line has been cross. IT HAS BEEN CROSSED!!!!!!" Where do you draw the line at "a tasteful nude and this smut that keeps popping up." That is certainly the more debatable topic, then whether or not to have a filter, which I don't remember saying no to. I mean what makes it smut. Is it nipple showing or a sexual act being performed (which I think the image in question certainly shows). Can we have different filters, maybe one that says "artful nude" the other that says "smut" and then one that says "tasteful smut" or just a "nude" filter whose definition is no skin below the neck and above the knee. If it were me, I would put a filter in that says "rude people". Cheers

<i> I will probably come across as too angry or hateful in this post too. </i><p>

 

How 'bout repetitive?

What I'm having a hard time figuring out is what the value of photo.net can possibly be to a 7-year-old.

 

All you've mentioned is discussing composition. But any random magazine contains dozens of examples of photos that would work as well or, being professionally done, better. It doesn't even need to be a photo magazine.

 

Photo.net consists in the main of approximately equal parts technical information and random and meaningless social chatter. I was a bit of a child prodigy, but most of the technical discussions here would have either been over my head, or bored me to tears, or both, when I was 7.

Now everyone will be happy....<div></div>

Oh no, nekkid particulars! The children, you shall warp their poor little minds!

Poor Ray had no chance with this thread did he? Sorry Ray, I guess you went down a firing away though! A tip of the hat to you.

 

You guys sound like a bunch of Rednecks on a Friday night just before hunting season.... Man!

Ray,

 

The point I was trying to make, in my own Swiftian way, is that the problem with a nudity filter is that we then have to ask what gets the filter.

 

Again, no one finds the work they do offensive. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to stomache doing it.

 

So what do you want to get filtered? Filth? To whom?

 

Everybody has their own standards. That's the problem I see with a filter.

Sounds like a lot of repressed hatered in that one.

 

 

Ray:

I agree with Vincent; give it a little longer. You are seeing the responses of only a handful of members. I have faith in the integrity of the PhotoNet community. The vast majority of them are not aware of this discussion's subject yet. Compassion is not as rare as some may think Eventually a change is going to be made here.

<i>You guys sound like a bunch of Rednecks on a Friday night just before hunting season.... Man!</i><BR><BR>

I will not respond in kind, but I will say this: open discussion would be much much smoother without name-calling; I've never called anybody any names, nor have I you, so I would appreciate your not including me in your enlightened response, which is highly insensitive, and is so circularly anti-serving it's spectacular.<BR>

I suggest to at least tone down the "personal" issues. If we are to disagree, we disagree. Dalai-Lama bless you.