Phirate charged us with a challenge to come up with a definition to replace that currently in use for the banning of blogs who have so much as one image on their site that involves nudity.
He would like us to reach a general consensus in order for a new policy to be formed. Once we come up with some variables, I can post a poll here for everyone involved to vote.
Let's do it!
EDIT: To view the thread where the discussion with Phirate occurred, click
here. (I don't want to link directly for my own reasons) Click to enlarge the image to full size.
EDIT: changed the title.
I'm not going to spend my time formulating a censorship policy for them. That's part of their job as business owners - I'm not going to do their work for them. They need to research what works elsewhere (like every other business owner offering a service) - they can publish their proposed plan on the blog and ask for feedback.
Next they'll be asking us to find new servers for them - they need to get up and get to work.
Probably one of the first things we should do is to look at the TOS for other social networking sites. Phi mentioned Flickr, but I think that we should do more than look at Flickr. Opinions and volunteers needed. If you choose a site, feel free to start a separate thread to discuss the TOS of that site.
[quote author=catswiththumbs link=topic=18117.msg71305#msg71305 date=1215961117]
I'm not going to spend my time formulating a censorship policy for them. That's part of their job as business owners - I'm not going to do their work for them. They need to research what works elsewhere (like every other business owner offering a service) - they can publish their proposed plan on the blog and ask for feedback.
Next they'll be asking us to find new servers for them - they need to get up and get to work.
[/quote]
Cat, then don't do it for them, do it for us. They already formulated a policy, and it is a policy that sucks. They deleted Billy's blog for two images which were buried somewhere on the site, with no notice.
No, that's the problem, they don't have a policy and Phirate asked EC customers to help formulate one - they are censoring here and there, willy-nilly, apparently each moderator nixing according to their own opinion.
They need to take the time to decide what they will and will not allow, spell it out on the blog, ask for feedback, make changes, and then stick to it.
That's their job - I'll be glad to provide feedback when they come up with something, but unless they are going to hire me I'm not doing their work for them.
[quote author=catswiththumbs link=topic=18117.msg71308#msg71308 date=1215961849]
No, that's the problem, they don't have a policy and Phirate asked EC customers to help formulate one - they are censoring here and there, willy-nilly, apparently each moderator nixing according to their own opinion.
They need to take the time to decide what they will and will not allow, spell it out on the blog, ask for feedback, make changes, and then stick to it.
That's their job - I'll be glad to provide feedback when they come up with something, but unless they are going to hire me I'm not doing their work for them.
[/quote]
I disagree. Yeah, they have given mods too much latitude, when a decision to shut down a site should really be made by one person, and always that person. But, that's the way they do it. And, just like we railed at the forum censorship (which in my mind was not as large an issue as censoring what we publish on our blogs), we should do this because otherwise, it will stay the same, and more users will wind up deleted at the whim of a mod. Personally, I think that someone at EC does not care for Billy's politics.
EDIT--will be back in an hour or so------have to go to brunch.
Nudity is treated differently by different sites.
example: eBay
1. nudity in post-1979 Playboy magazines is porn and must be listed in the adults only section
2. nudity in pre-1980 Playboy magazines is not porn and can be listed on the regular site
3. nudity of non-European non-white females from developing nations is not porn (National Geographic being one example) and can be listed on the regular site --can you say RACIST?
Quote: the banning of blogs who have so much as one image on their site that involves nudity.
I guess that rules out Entrecard membership for art and medical blogs.
Is Entrecard, like the biblethumping hypocrites in this country, confused about the difference between nudity and pornography?
definition of pornography Wrote:Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
definition of nudity Wrote:Having no clothing; naked
Good points, Amy. Yeah, they're confused. And I pointed out the collision of their policy with art blogs. I even posted a famous nude on one of my blogs so they would get it. Nothing. They are adamant that they can't determine one from another, so all nudity is banned. But, apparently they make an exception for a nude painting......at least the one I posted.
Supreme Court rulings on obscenity:
Roth v US
Quote:The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest
Miller v California
Quote:whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06consti...cases.html
My suggestion for a new policy: use the Supreme Court rulings to guide you
1. Decide whether the image is nudity or pornography:
A. If it's nudity: STFU and leave the blog writer and their images alone
B. If it's pornography...
1. if "the work blog, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value", ask the blog writer to either remove the porn or move the porn to a page that requires users to access the pornographic image through a "I'm 18+ and agree to view sexually explicit material" landing page
2. if the blog's "primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal" or "appeal to the prurient interest"...ban it.