bens Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 spaghetti, thanks for the response. your advice under the circumstances is certainly a good one. but i simply would like to know the site's position on photographs depicting sex acts, such as the one referred to above by Steve -- WHATEVER the position is, including whether or not they take a position. I can then understand the position and determine what to do under the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 spaghetti, to be clear, by good advice i mean your reference to caveat emptor. i do think the site can and should take a stand regarding sex act photos, as is obvious from my postings here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 "...i do think the site can and should take a stand regarding sex act photos, as is obvious from my postings here..." and i just explained why it would be foolish for the site to take a stand on ANY 'class' of photos, least of which should be because any one member thinks it should, and most of which because it is already clear by the plain language of the site terms of use that it does not pre-censor material uploaded to its servers and that it has a policy and procedure to deal with 'objectionable' instances of material (and abusers) brought to its attention that is all from me on this. promise (youre welcome) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 thanks spaghetti, i appreciate your position and almost wish i could agree with it. don't though. i am not asking for pre-posting censorship. i am asking what does the site consider objectionable in a certain category of photos if and when they are pointed out, or whether the site has any position at all that it is willing to state. indeed a statement that says, "we will not state our position on this subject in this forum" would end this thread, at least. but imho this is an important issue that should be addressed in some fashion. there is a difference, a significant one, between "nudes" and photos depicting sex acts. i can't find any policy on such photographs, other than a general statement that if I consider a photo obscene i can report it, and the site MAY remove it if it agrees. that is a complaint procedure, not a statement of the site's policy. i'd like to know the site's policy, or that it does not have one, or that it won't state one -- whatever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a discussion about censorship, which was not what the original poster, Anne, wanted. Indeed, to the contrary, Anne wrote "I'm not trying to censor anyone and I respect the fact that nude photography is so popular here - I just miss sharing the beautiful work on this site with my family." Bob answered the ORIGINAL question by pointing out that, at present, there is no way to filter content on the TRPs. I proposed a simple system in which future adult content might be marked as such at the time of upload. This would make it possible to easily implement a user selectable filter for adult content (this is not censorship!). A similar filtering feature is offered by usefilm.com. I can't see why anyone would object to the site providing a means for individual users to filter adult content. But then, maybe I'm blind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 steve, sorry if i've helped detour this thread from anne's original subject. i read bob's responses and references to be an indication that filters won't be provided, and so sought a response to a more basic question which has been left unanswered about the photo you referred to. i won't post any more messages here unless asked a question by the site's people, but instead may start a new thread on the subject i've raised if there is no response in the next couple of days here. i disagree to the extent you think any views i've expressed advocate "censorship", but that is for another discussion. again, sorry if i've detoured things from where you and anne wanted this to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_ulm3 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I have read everything and I just wanted to try to ass my 2 cents without repeating what's already been gone over. Children or no, there are a lot lof places that nudes can get you into a lot of trouble. Computer go down and you're stuck using one at the library? No more pnet for you. Want to take in some pnet over your sack lunch at your desk on your lunch hour? Cringe everytime you think of one of those nude thumbnails (forget 'rate recent') come across the server because you know 'adult content' is a firable offense. College computer labs and such. I'm not saying that they need to be locked away in the basement. They are just as much a part of this site as street shooting and nature, but their appearance on the front of certain sections without a way of avoiding them deprives anyone not viewing on their own computer at home the joy of pnet. I understand that is a huge amount of work and this issue has been weighed again and again. Just one little opinion. Bob, I know that the nude section of 'learning' has been registered with some sort of filtering software. Sorry I can't remember specifics but I'm at work and don't really want those images in the server log. Is there a way that you can, instead of having to filter through the site, have a tag on those to let things like NetNanny know what they are. As I don't have kids and could hand Hustlers on my fridge door if I wanted, I don't know the specifics of that (how hard, how much work, how effective, ...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 If you don't want to read threads in the archives, that is one thing. But the site administrators aren't under an obligation to keep reiterating the site policies whenever someone decides to start a new thread on an old topic and chooses not to refer to the archives. It is a bit much to refuse to read archived threads on well-trodden topics and then make a big deal out of the fact that I'm not responding to you. The site's philosophy on nudity is clear, and I'm not going to make yet another statement about it. Please refer to the Terms of Use, and any number of threads on the topic. As for the image that was referenced in this discussion, I think it is debatable whether it is pornography. Pornography is intended to arouse the viewer. I don't think this image is intended to arouse anyone. I think it is an image that is intended to be controversial, rather than pornography. To wind people up. In that regard, it is a successful image. Neverthess, in general, whether they are pornographic or not, images involving sex acts and erect penises are deleted from the photo.net Gallery, and I deleted the image that was referenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I quickly read through the thread that Bob referenced shortly after he posted his comment on Saturday. I looked through it again a short while ago. I see that a suggestion was made then, similar to the one I have made here, that adult content be marked as such at the time of upload and that this tagging system be used as the basis for programming a user selectable filter option for adult content. Indeed, it was suggested that the filter be "off" by default. I envisaged "off" being the default setting as well, although I did not state this directly in my post. With all due respect, Brian, it seems that you did not provide a direct response to this suggestion. I may have overlooked it or not recognized that you provided a response, and I sincerely apologize if this is the case. Nevertheless, could you please let us know now why you are resistant to the idea of implementing a user selectable filter for adult content? Obviously, the proposed filtering system would only work on images uploaded after its implementation. However, for those who choose to use the filter, it would have a significant and immediate impact on the default TRP, which consists of images uploaded during the past 3 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I didn't check which thread Bob posted a link to. I've stated my opinion on this topic many times, enough times that it is irritating to have people keep demanding that I state my opinion. It hasn't changed. One more time, my opinion is (1) marking photos which someone might find objectionable is not feasible. Even just marking which photos contain nudity is not feasible. It would not be feasible to do it even if you could ignore the million photos that have already been uploaded (which you can't); (2) even if it were feasible, and even if it could be done with 100% accuracy, there will always be new photos that have not been classified yet, since photo.net allows people to upload photos and makes them available for public viewing before anyone could classify them, or remove photos that should be removed. This is a feature of the site which we have no interest to change. (3) If we claim to classify material, we better get it 100% because the first time someone relied on our claims and got fired because photo.net put an objectionable image on their computer screen, we would be in more legal trouble than if we never made any claims at all. So: photo.net has nudity. It is for grown-ups. It is for people who don't have a problem with images involving nudity, and who won't be unduly upset by objectionable images that will be deleted eventually but haven't been deleted yet. We do delete pornography and some other types of images that are objectionable WHEN WE BECOME AWARE OF THEM, but as the Terms of Use state, that doesn't mean that you won't see them. Anybody in the world with Internet access and a computer can post images on photo.net and have them be viewed for some period of time before the administrators become aware of them -- perhaps quite a long period of time. You should not be visiting photo.net at work if your employer objects to nudity or "adult content" and if you could be fired or disciplined for having the "wrong" images on your screen. If you are a parent and you don't want your kids to see nudity etc, don't visit photo.net when your kids are around and don't let them visit the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Thank you for taking the time to once again state your position on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcalbaz Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 <br><b>Perhaps another solution?</b> I concur with the suggestion of allowing the image uploader to rate their own images on an Adult scale from 1 to 7. I also offer the solution of perhaps allowing people who are like to rate images the ability to rate the Adultness of any image on a scale of 1 to 7. This offloads a lot of the work off of the site managers and can also be used retroactively for existing images.</br><br>Ted</br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now