Are we going to far with photo content

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by darren_conklin, Oct 6, 2003.

  1. Are we going to far with what is aloud for photo content. I recently
    suggested the site to my 15 year olds girlfriend who is getting into
    photography but am having second thoughts with some of the content. I
    have no problem with nude photography it is an art form but some of
    it is borderline porn or just flat porn. Not everyone veiwing this
    sight is 18 or older. We don't always have to parade people to show
    the beauty in them or to distract in the actual quality of the photo.
    I also really don't care for some of the gory photos even though they
    are art. I drove tow truck for too many years in an area of
    Washington State with the most Fatality accidents and have seen more
    than I ever want to see again. If I went into detail you'd all be
    sick and if you were'nt somethings wrong with you. So do we need so
    many staged and digitally altered gory photos also
     
  2. Darren, pornography isn't permitted on this site, and neither are photos that are offensive, such as deliberately staged gore.

    However, there are about 1200 to 1400 photos submitted per day with no preview by the administrators of the site, and somebody might well see an objectionable photo before anybody connected with the site has seen it or had the opportunity to remove it. This has to be taken into account when recommending the photo.net Gallery to young viewers, or indeed any other site which operates like photo.net, as most photo sharing sites do. There is always a chance of seeing porn or some other disgusting photo that some moron thought would be cool to upload.

    If you do notice a photo that you think should be removed, please contact the abuse@photo.net mailbox or one of the moderators. We take down several photos per week, some that we notice ourselves, and others that are brought to our attention. It is a tiny percentage, which attests to the fact that the vast majority people are pretty responsible; but given any privelege, there is always somebody who will abuse it.
     
  3. I always find it strange that the magical 18 is seen as a point at which we suddenly become capable of dealing with certain types of imagary. 15 year old's these days have usually seen a lot more than we did at that age and your average 15yr old girl (and prob lad) is well able, I feel, to handle anything that appears on this site. This is especially relevant if she is going to attempt anything more than a good snapshot. She will need to make her own distinctions between what she considers quality work and what is dross - and why she feels that way. This is a great place to do that ... there is open discussion between holders of many different points of view.

    On a slightly different note ... i could see her parents possibly being more of a problem here

    "but mom ... jenny's dad says this is a great site for photographers and he looks at it all the time"

    "yeh ... im sure he does dear!!!"

    lol
     
  4. I agree that 15 year olds have probably seen more than we did at 15 but if we as a society don't control what children view pretty soon it's going to be 8 year olds have seen more than we did at 35. The only way we as adults can control what children view is by controlling what we post. We need to think before we post pictures who might view them. Myself as an adult don't find some of them appealing and skip by them. On the other hand a child especially at an age where hormones are rushing through them will not. I won't give a reference to the photo number or photographer but one that sticks to mind that by the way was very highly rated is a shot from the rear of a woman with a swollen clitoris hanging down. Sure the photo was very clear with great detail and deserved a very high rating but the content was my problem.
     
  5. Um, Brian- My comments and rates on Rik Garrets pictures were removed and I was reprimanded for rating them all low- but despite being deliberatley staged gore, they certainly weren't removed.

    What exactly would qualify as gorey enough for you to remove it...?
     
  6. WJT

    WJT Moderator

    This is the way of PhotoNet. You, as a parent who is trying to be responsible, voices a perfectly legitimate concern, and is greeted by rants and ravings from people who feel their freedoms are threatened. I understand your position. All you're asking for is a modicum of responsiblity from our adult population. Fool that you are! Don't you realize that people do not wish to be responsible? It is human nature to shun all responsibility and to wallow in the pursuit of the self.

    I have yet to peruse a "fashion magazine" and see images of erect penises, fondeled vulvas, brides having their throats slit open by their husbands, and prolapsed rectums protruding from blood soaked anuses. Yet all these fine images can be found right here on our very own PhotoNet. This situation will not change. It is not possible to change it. Indeed, change may not even be desirable. It is an equation with variables of finances, manpower, and censorship rules on one side, and the enormity of the task on the other.

    Darren, this site's Gallery is probably not suitable for most adolescents and certainly not suitable for children. The Forums, however, do contain a wealth of helpful information. The problem is, how do you guide a young person in one direction and not the other. On one hand I don't envy you, for this is a formidable task. But on the other, it is a task that ultimately promises great rewards. Regards.
     
  7. "I have yet to peruse a "fashion magazine" and see images of erect penises, fondeled vulvas, brides having their throats slit open by their husbands, and prolapsed rectums protruding from blood soaked anuses."
    Did you report any of these to "abuse@photo.net". If they were as you describe them I can only assume that some action would almost certainly have been taken. If they had been brought to my attention, and they are accurately described, it is highly likely that I would have removed some or all of them.
    If you didn't report them, you have no grounds to complain that they weren't removed. As Brian said, the presence of an image on photo.net does NOT indicate that it'a acceptable for the site. With so many images posted every day, it's up to users to assist the abuse moderators. They can't possibly screen every image and they need help in locating questionable images.
     
  8. Maybe on a slightly different tack but, the other day I was looking at some of the photos on here while I was at work. Now, I'm a teacher and there are often a lot of young kids in the office. I clicked on a photo subject line that was fairly innocent sounding (I can't remember what it was), and the pic contained nudity. It definately wasn't porn, and I don't have any problem with nudity, but as I said, there were lots of young kids nearby. Is it possible that if someone posts a photo that has nudity, they can state that in the subject line?

    Cheers,
    Craig
     
  9. or just a checkbox upon upload that can then be filtered with.
     
  10. Oh, please Bob- if moderators are going to strip low ratings and comments from gorey pictures they sure as heck arent going to remove the same pictures. abuse@pn or no abuse@pn. you all seem to need blanket rules that are applicable to all the moderators. If gorey pictures should be removed then they should be removed. we shouldn't be punished for rating them low.
     
  11. How about images being on the TOP Rated pages BOB and Brian....for the entire weekend at that. How about images posted for over a year?? I have personally had very thorough discussions with Brian about some very graphic images in the past. How about Igor's A. closeup of a vagina?? a CLOSE-UP of a vagina....on a very public site. There is another top rated one not as graphic but yet certainly there as well right now. Look at this one...(for some reason since I am on an internet cafe computer off island, I cannot copy and paste). Brian's responses were quite sad in my opinion. The erection image was on the first page of the top rated for an entire weekend. At one pont I pulled my entire portfoli because of that one image of Igor (it's still up there) and the lame discussion with Brian. I reasoned with myself, and agreed to try to look at some of this as art. So in December (four months later) I started trying to establish a folder once again. I would suggest that you guys take closer look at your guidelines as regards nudes. Much of it is not acceptable in my opinion, in the opinion of many others and certainly something needs to be done about it! Hey, but the boss does not see it that way...so they stay anyway! Who cares about what is decent anymore?? Your definition of what is art and what is porn is muddy at best and a sad excuse to allow clearly sexually explicit material to be posted, since you can tell us anyway, that you are getting rid of the real filth. Young minds as well as anybody sick can view these obscene images right here and now from anywhere they wish. I am on an internet cafe in California with young people all around....anybody can see images that are offensive and certainly not acceptable on a very public website!!! Come on guys, we were not born yesterday...get real!

    Reading the above comments of responsible men only brings to light the very sad truth.....that the gallery is not really acceptable for public viewing! Now, what do you guys intend to do about it?? I for one am sick and tired of posting images here only to see them right next to garbage. I too am listening with open ears to hear what you really intend to do about it.
     
  12. I know the heats coming for this also but here goes. The news and documentaries almost always give a warning before showing anything that could be disturbing or offensive so parents can decide wether or not to allow their children to view it. I don't know how the rest of the country is but where I live any magazine cover that is too revealing is covered. Some of the photos I'm complaining about also in my opinion do oppress women. I'm not complaining about all nudes only a few. Nude women are beautiful and most of the nudes here portray them that way. The ones I'm complaining about are also art and should be able to be viewed but not by children. Maybe there is some way we could make it to where you had to log in to view those and put restrictions on that for children.
     
  13. at www.photopoints.net they have a system whereby members rate from 1 to 5, but there is a -3 rating that can be applied to any photo that a member feels is unacceptable for the site. After so many such ratings the photo is either removed or forwarded to the administrator for review.

    Would it be a great problem to offer the membership something like this kind of input? Or would it open up a whole new arena of abuse?
     
  14. Porn sites get a high number of visits "hits". <p>
    Photonet is looking for a lot of visits <p>
    Is there any question why they allow it here?
     
  15. As a mother of two young daughters, I was saddened that I was unable to view this
    site in their presence. In my quest to learn photography, I have found this site both
    inspirational and informative, but have also been rather disgusted with the number of
    hits and high ratings that the nude females get. It became even more amusing when I
    saw a male nude get bashed when I thought it was original and far from
    pornographic. Perhaps a nude forum would make everyone happy and you can all
    swear you are 18 when you want to visit it. Reminds of the secret room in video
    stores you have to go into to view a X-rated movie. I am not opposed to nudity, but
    it is sad that this site is one that can be inappropriate for young minds, especially
    those trying to learn photography.

    Teresa Smolinski (the other half)
     
  16. fyi...the vagina is on the inside......
     
  17. just rushing to igors defence, he wasn't here to do it himself....
     
  18. Sorry Doug but I think Vin knows where the Vagina is and was trying to used terms most of us would understand without an anatomy book.
     
  19. pssssaaaaaah... After starting posts like this one, your fine young children can't even safely READ the photo.net forum stuff... Now images you can filter out can't you? You can just block downloading ANY picture while browsing... but text also wakes interest up in those "hormon-overloaded" teenagers and children. It did, in me, in that time, anyway!

    What always amused me, by the way, is the age difference between the legal limits of driving a car and of drinking alcohol in (some of?)the States...

    Cheers!
     
  20. Pornography on the internet is not illegal. But what bothers me is by not doing anything about it they are incouraging it. In a way they probably look forward to it and do encourage it because based on the numbers of ratings these pictures receive they are getting more hits for the site and therefore more money from their advertisers. Just look at the current highest rated photos at any given time. Actions speak volumns, words are empty. Just be honest with us.
     
  21. thank for making vin's intentions clear, to not only me, but everyone that might have read his comment...
    did you notice i apologized to him for being a smartass?
    guess not.
     
  22. Since I don't run the site or program the gallery I don't "intend to do anything about it". If I see unacceptable images I will remove them, but I don't go looking for them and weeks pass by when I don't even look at the gallery. If someone sends me email or I see a complaint here I'll usually try to act on it, but I'm not an abuse moderator and I don't see email sent to "abuse@photo.net".

    I agree with the view that it would be good if photo.net could have better control over what gets displayed, but I don't know how that can be accomplished. We can't check every submitted image before it gets displayed, even if we wanted to. There are too many images and it would take too long.

    Eventually something will have to be done I think, but exactly what, I don't know, and I won't be the person who has to do it. Brian does the work.

    There will always be some images that some people object to. The ideal would be to minimize complaints and problems with images, while not generating too many complaints of overly aggressive censorship.

    How you would deal with the 1/2 million images already in the database I don't know. Simple solutions don't spring to mind.
     
  23. The problem, as ever, is that one person's porn is another's art. Personally I doubt that seeing a photo of a clitoris is going to damage a child's development (especially a 15 yo girl, who presumably has one of her own).

    Further, so far as I'm aware there is no candidate definition of art which requires that it not offend. In fact I'd say that an important role of art is to challenge our prejudices, cause us to re-think our assumptions. One of the ways it might do this is to present as beautiful something typically thought of as ugly or banal. Or even obscene.

    If you personally don't believe a 15yo should see some photos on this site, don't suggest she look. Or is the entire world obliged to be reduced to intellectual and emotional babyfood, lest a child see something shocking? Best stick with the charred bodies from the evening news.
     
  24. Graham, I am not concerned with my daughters seeing naked women! I am concerned
    that they will see women portrayed as objects. We try to teach them that their bodies
    are their own and to demand respect from men. It's clear that those of us with young
    daugthers are facing a different battle than those without.

    Teresa (the other half)
     
  25. It's just not the 15 year olds I have a shortcut on my desktop. My 15 year old and 18 year old aren't allowed to use my computer. I frequently find my 11 year old on it doing homework. What if she wonders what this is and starts browsing when I'm not there to supervise what she is doing. There is nothing wrong with nude photography and we actually have some partials displayed in our house and it is art. But in my opinion the woman in a nude photograph should be able to look at it and still hold her head high and feel like a Lady because she was portraid as a beautiful woman in an art form and not as a piece of meat or dangled as a trophy because that is degrading and oppresses women. It also exploits the minds of young children and who knows what it does for perverts. I'm not a saint and have taken photos along with a bottle of Jack Daniels but they have been destroyed because yes they were degrading and yes I was ashamed for taking them. They also were never displayed for public view. I could have posted them here for high ratings but I have respect for women and feel they should be treated like ladies.
     
  26. Teresa, why are you posting under your
    husband`s name ?

    You can do whatever you like obviously,
    it`s just that I have a hard time
    seeing a woman who posts as her husband`s wife
    as a person in her
    own right.
     
  27. Leanne, I posted under my husband's name because we are in business together and
    that by signing my name it would clarify that the post is my opinion, not his. Even
    the mere suggestion that I am not my own person is ridiculous, so let's not go there.
    Your photography is great, shows good taste and I'd be willing to hold your work up
    as an example of what I consider appropriate. Rather than toss insults, why not
    comment on the topic at hand?

    Teresa
     
  28. Thanks Teresa/Dick.

    Sorry if you think my post is off topic.
    I thought we were discussing
    what we would prefer not to see posted
    on this site, hence my 2cents.

    Just my feminist side, sorry, no offense intended.
     
  29. Leanne, thanks for your response. I was serious when I asked for your opinion on the
    topic at hand. I'd love to hear what you have to say.

    Teresa
     
  30. What I always say...live and let live.
    We can always report anything which is
    really out there.
     
  31. Maybe if the top photos were sorted into
    categories, as has recently been suggested,
    that would make it easier to see what`s going on,
    and we would be able to view images in context,
    or by genre, making everything a lot less
    random.
    Someone will have to be photo editor,
    but it`s an idea.
     
  32. On usefilm.com exists an option "supress adult content". If you want you may disable/enable it any time. Why it's impossible to get something similar here, on PN? It might resolve the issue. Unless, of course this hasn't been used to recrut many new *pornonetters*.
     
  33. Been a while since I had access to a computer, in Oregon now. The bottom line is that Photo.net needs to act responsibly when it comes to what types of images are allowed to remain in the gallery. The gallery is very public...look at the number of views many images receive. Yes, we can see the comments above (from those in positions of responsibility) claiming to remove pornographic material. The facts however prove otherwise in my sincere opinion. Images that clearly cross the line are not only posted, but are also ALLOWED to remain posted indefinitely. Those are the simple facts here...not just in my opinion either, look at the many others who feel the same.

    I have also been a member at Usefilm for over a year now. They do offer (as Vlad mentioned above) a simple option to suppress nudes if desired. Why not simply give us that option over here as well?? It would certainly go a long way in helping find some type of resolution to what has become a serious issue and concern for many. Better yet, why not re-examine the Photo.net guidelines as to what is nude and artistic, and what is not!
     
  34. I don't think nudes are really the problem. I mean c'mon, seeing someone naked is going to damage a child irreparably for life? Please. However- there is a line. Throats being slit, lude sexual acts; children being exploited... I guess you could call it free speech; but that doesn't really apply when your free speech can potentially harm another human being( like a child). I, too, like to show my 5 year old the neat pictures I find here, and It's a pain in the butt to have to make sure all the pictures surronding that one (in the gallery or a folder) are suitable. So, c'mon PN get with it. Give us a way to filter out these over the line pictures- and don't give us the "email abuse@photo.net" line. It doesn't really work as I believe others have demonstrated and since moderators seem to side with the people posting the pictures and censor those of us who speak up- there has got to be something done to give US some CONTROL. We pay for our use of the site, and darnit- it's not right to slam the door in our face when we ask for better filtering of the pictures.

    (which is what I think is happening here; perhaps you're working on it, if that's the case, then more power to you- otherwise...)
     
  35. I am glad to see that there are other people with the same moral principles as myself. I really appreciate the responses to this forum. I do realize it will be hard to draw the lines between nude art/soft porn/and just flat porn. To me a big factor isn't wether it's nude but how it's presented that draws the line. It does amaze me though how some of the portaits I've looked at that aren't nudes are rated lower than the nudes that are aesthetically worse. Maybe that shows what most people want to see, but that still doesn't make them acceptable for children. What will be considered acceptable for the next generations of children to come if we keep lowering our standards and morals.
     
  36. I don't know if this will help open any eyes or not,but about 5 years ago two of my nephews found a similar site and printed up a whole bunch of the photos and passed them around at school. How would any of you like receiving that phone call from the school to come get your kids. I'm glad it wasn't me getting that one. I have recieved a phone call from school telling me to come pick my child up because he has been suspended and arrested. Unfortunately I didn't monitor everything my child watched like the show Jack Ass and the fact that all through school they are taught about Woodstock and free love etc. without being informed about any of the consequences. My son with another friend decided to go streaking while another classmate video taped them which in todays world is considered a felony offense and if anyone under thirteen had seen them they would both now be registered sexual offenders It was a stupid last day of school prank that he has paid dearly for at home, at school, and through the courts. What makes a lot of the content here any different. I've made my mistakes as a parent and would like to help others not make the same ones.
     
  37. Beings I'm sitting here bored I'll also add to the gore part of this forum. I really doubt I'm the only person who uses this site that has seen the real thing. I would bet there are others who have to deal with it daily that use this site as a getaway to relax and don't want to be reminded of what they've seen for real. I don't want to post what I've seen for real but if it helps anybody that hasn't seen anything decide on wether or not staged gore photos should be shown they can Email me and I'll reply with what I've seen which I'm sure isn't as bad or as often as others but will probably still make you sick.
     

Share This Page