Log in

Dead Fish + Pussy + Tits = Restricted

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 14th, 2008 | 03:41 am

I think I have a problem with Flickr and what they think I need to mark as moderate. Granted, my view on this issue is skewed because my account has been moderated 3 times now. And when you're not logged into Flickr, attempting to view my stream right now, you can only see one photo, and it's the most random photo ever. Anyway.

This, in my opinion is the kind of photo people should be moderating, in fact I rated this as Restricted, because it has boobs, punani and suggestive dead fish. However, I wouldn't consider rating this photo as Restricted, even though it too has boobs and punani.

According to the email I get from Flickr, I should, "Use [my] common sense about whether or not [my] content is suitable for a global, public audience. If the answer is
no, [I] need to filter it from public view." But what if my common sense is different from someone else's? I don't believe that this photo needs to be marked as Restricted, but I'm right, right? That photo should be rated as Moderate? But what about this one? I don't even believe that that should be marked as Moderate. Should it be?

I don't know, I guess I'm just sour because almost my entire stream should apparently be marked as Moderate or Restricted and then I lose a lot of views. Oh well. People should just learn to turn their SafeSearch off.

It sucks though, that if a person isn't logged into Flickr that they can't see ANY of my photos. Well, except one. Which isn't even a photo of mine, it's a screenshot.

Also, when looking at the safety filter descriptions, Moderate is described as ,"Some of the things you upload may be considered offensive by some people. " I don't think any of the stuff I upload is offensive. Well, except maybe this photo, but it's more just...gross. And then for Restricted it says, "Your photostream is unsuitable for children, your grandmother or your workmates." Well, I don't want my grandma seeing my boobs, but I don't mind if someone else's grandma does. And I don't mind if my co-workers do either. So should my boobs be restricted? Goddamn.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {9}


(no subject)

from: wunnspeed
date: May. 14th, 2008 08:14 am (UTC)

I find and have always found the restrictions on nudity to be so very stupid. As an American living abroad, it's gotten more and more confusing to be as a large part of the people that are here don't give a damn about sex and/or nudity. What they care about is violence. I see more nudity on normal daytime TV than I've seen on R rated movies in the States. It's bizarre.

In short... I get where you're coming from.

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: pollywood
date: May. 14th, 2008 12:54 pm (UTC)

my grandma would love you, and my workmates too.
and, actually, if i had children, they'd love you too.

Reply | Thread

walrus damnit

Boobies want to be free!

from: dylanevl
date: May. 14th, 2008 01:41 pm (UTC)

I think this sort of knee-jerk reaction to nudity is on its way out-- partially in thanks to people like yourself who are so incredibly comfortable with putting it out there. I think the internet is going to push society a long way in what is considered acceptable in 'polite company'.

That is to say-- hopefully America will catch up to the European mindset before too long.

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: caprinus
date: May. 14th, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC)

LOL at commenters talking about "European mindset". The Flicker guideline talks about a global audience; not just North America and Europe, but China and Egypt and Lesotho and Chile and Laos... and out of all these countries, they expect you to take the most offendable mindset and set moderation according to it; not according to what you think.

I agree this is patently stupid, and that's why I refuse to use Flickr myself; but if you do use the site, that's what they want you to adhere to, for better or (always) for worse, and that's why Moderated and Restricted standard is so high. The naked body, especially the naked female body, is offensive to lots of crazy fundies and pseudo-Victorian throwbacks out there, and Flickr, in its corporate wisdom, wants you to preserve their innocent eyes from your Western liberal filth. Goooood luck!

Reply | Thread

larmes 1930-33

(no subject)

from: smelly_cat_face
date: May. 14th, 2008 03:57 pm (UTC)

/\/\ Somehow I bet the naked male body would be even more offensive. The (although not most recent) history of looking says that the female body is for looking at, and the male is to do the looking.

Katie I think you should start posting sreencaps of famous impressionist paintings and the like which take advantage of the female body as an object, but are considered classical/tasteful works of art to the masses. You know what I mean? And then mark them as safe, or something.

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: sxyblkmn
date: May. 14th, 2008 05:25 pm (UTC)

even though i've said it many a times, it wasn't until this post that i learned just how you spell "punani"

thank you katie west, you are made of win

Reply | Thread

J.R. Blackwell

To the Billion Points of Light

from: blackwell
date: May. 14th, 2008 06:13 pm (UTC)

The majority of the world lives in fear of female flesh. It's considered too powerful, too vulgar, too lewd for most eyes. Women are covered more than men all over the world. It is very scary, for many people, to think of someone seeing a naked, confident woman. Or to think of other people seeing such a woman.

Your work walks all over boundaries, dear, young revolutionary. It's not surprising to me that it's too much for some people to bear.

I have an excellent grasp of the victorian/puritanical/american mindset. Should you ever require assistance moderating your photos, I would be happy to do so.

Reply | Thread

la corona del amor

(no subject)

from: neochristsavant
date: May. 15th, 2008 05:54 am (UTC)

more noticing your lips. but, dead fish? lol. bad connection.

Reply | Thread

Mexican magical realism

(no subject)

from: saltsoda
date: May. 15th, 2008 06:02 am (UTC)

katie is underexposed

Reply | Thread