a separate place for nudes?

Thanks Leanne. I will be more careful in the future.

 

However, I did not presume to speak for all women just as I don't speak for all teenagers, many of whom I'm sure would be very happy for things to remain as they are. The idea was to show that photonet should not be steered for the benefit of its largest constituancy, in my opinion, but should consider members whose numbers are lesser, and who might be concerned about an issue like this. The compromise model I've suggested is one way, the only one I can think of, where every one wins, and the small sacrifice of a few makes a large impact for many.

 

In the end it's not a problem I'm terribly concerned about.

<p>Here's a suggestion:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Add a flag to each image to indicate "Adult-orientated image" (or something similar).</li>

<li>Allow the photographer to use his or her own discretion to decide whether to check that box or not.</li>

<li>Allow users of the site to click a link that says "Filter adult content" (along with a disclaimer saying that it is not guaranteed). The filter would be off by default, and could be remembered in a cookie.</li>

<li>Old photos could be left with the flag cleared (unless the photographer chose to go back and set it). Most people (it seems) look at the TRP page, which only has recent images anyway.</li>

</ol>

<p>This would have the following advantages:</p>

<ul>

<li>By default there is no "censorship", but people who want to avoid nudes, etc. can choose to do so.</li>

<li>The development effort to implement this would be minimal, and there would be no ongoing effort required on the part of the moderators.</li>

<li>People browsing on work computers would have a reasonable defence if the occasional thumbnail image appeared, especially if they avoid viewing the full image if they consider it to be potentially unsuitable.</li>

<li>Although people browsing with their children would still have the occasional opportunity to have the "sex" discussions when an image that maybe should be flagged is not, the number of these images would be significantly reduced so they could spend most of their time doing what they came for: talking about the photography.</li>

<li>It wouldn't make it any <i>easier</i> to find nude images, so would avoid attracting people who are just looking for pornography.</li>

<li>We could avoid having these threads in the feedback forum! The fact that they keep coming back (if some of the earlier posts are correct) surely indicates that there are a significant number of people for whom it is an issue?</li>

</ul>

<p>By the way, the legal issue is something that I think is only going to become more important. Here in the UK people are getting more and more sensitive about child protection issues, and adults caught showing minors (children under 16) images that could be interpreted as "pornographic", or looking at images of nude children (which could be interpreted as "child pornography") are increasingly putting themselves at risk of being labelled as paedophiles (with potential consequences beyond just unemployment). If they had selected "filter adult content" and the occasional questionable thumbnail came up they would be in a much stronger legal position (as I said above).</p>

<p>Finally, if not having an adult content filter is discouraging some (paying) subscribers for whatever reason (and I am one, just for the record), then why not have one - it wouldn't take very many of those subscribers to recoup the cost of the development effort. Then see how it goes. In the end it is a business decision for the owners of photo.net, not particularly a moral statement on their part (in my opinion).</p>

While personally I dont find any form of nudity offensive you have consider what is suitable, photo.net as far as I know should not in theory contains the kind of image you would normally find in adult porn sites. Recently I came across several male nudes that contains erect penises on photo.net, now unless the goal post has been changed these are considered pornographic, even ambigous erections which the poster might dispute is not enough and still gives the "impression" of arousal. I have no problem with adult images personally but this site is not intended as such and people of all ages are not warned about what they might see here. I have no problems if photo.net have a seperate section which excludes anyone under 18 years old which contains images of sexual nature but there isnt.

On the subject of male and female nudes the display of genitalias of both sexes under normal non overtly sexualised way is not pornographic, but I find it really odd that females when nude cannot be shown with her legs open revealing her vagina even when not doing anything sexual while male nudes are without limit in the kind of poses it can do. I recently saw a DVD involving genuine nude Romanian gynastic champions going through their routines, it wasnt porn but I find it beautifully sensual and artistic display of the human body in motion and how the female form and muscles tighten and relax when doing comples excercise in slow motion (or freeze frame), the only problem was that the gymnast wore a thong to hide their blush. That was really daft as it misses out on becoming a work of art if they were shown as nature intended.

Photo.net does not examine every image that is uploaded. That would be impossible, there's just too much of it. Therefore all sorts of stuff may be in the gallery and the only way offensive material can be removed is if someone sends a complaint to "abuse@photo.net".

 

I think I'm safe in saying photo.net WANTS to be told of any images which may be pornographic so they can be viewed and removed if they violate photo.net guidelines ("no pornography" is one of them!).

 

The only way to get the "nasty" stuff off the website is to tell us where it is and to depend on the judgement of the administrators as to what is and isn't acceptable. Just because it appears on the site does not mean photo.net approves of it.

The moderators on this site should be each be given metals. People at random can upload any image; and many here expect the moderators to be on line 24 hours a day; to correct the zoo of photos. There is abit too much whining here; many expect a free site to instantly crop out/delete photos. Learn some personal responsiblity; and give the poor un-paid moderators a break. In the old days if one didnt like what they saw in a book; they just turned the page; today many whine; and complain.

Why do people over-react to this every time it's brought up? It's not censorship, it's viewing choice.

 

I don't see why we can't have a PG checkbox added to the ratings system. That way it is the viewers that rate the pictures and we don't have to rely on the photographers. This shouldn't upset the photographers because the people who don't want to see the pictures that do get checked, won't appreciate the art (or lack-of) anyway and those who do want to see all the content including PG pictures, have no impediment to doing so. So what's the big deal?

 

It's not an issue of nudity or not, it's an issue of wanting to choose what you are shown and making photo.net enjoyable for the maximum amount of people. PG could be applied to some of the photojournalistic shots as much as the nudes.

 

The photographer can check the checkbox, and raters can check the checkbox. Viewers can then choose whether they view PG rated images or not depending on whether they are viewing by themselves or with children/spouses/colleagues.

 

As for the backlog. Enthusiastic viewers like me troll all over the place and will eventually get to most of the content and it has been pointed out that it's the newer uploads that are more affected anyway because they are displayed prominently on entry to the Gallery.

 

Let's not get all emotional and abusive about this, let's just have it done and get on with enjoying showing and viewing our work.

>>It's not censorship, it's viewing choice<<

 

good, so choose NOT to look at them! See...? It's easy! When the thumbnails with nudes come up...change page.