venturebeat.com— Tumblr, a photo-heavy blogging platform that has attracted a lot of teens, announced today that it will ban blogs containing content that promotes anorexia, self-mutilation, and other harmful behaviors.
Feb 24, 2012View in Crawl 4
Indeed. Better to keep the fear and sorrow bottled up inside until the person feels the only way out is to jump off of a bridge. Then the media can get some choice quotes from family and friends like, "He was well loved. We had no idea how much pain he was in. I wish I could have help him."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
except that you're completely missing the point. the point is these people aren't posting these things as a plea for help. they are celebrating eating disorders and self-harm. not only are they glorifying them, they are sending the message to other young, impressionable people that not only are eating disorders okay, they're cool and something that's desirable to have. that kind of self-destructive behavior has no place anywhere, and Tumblr is doing the right thing by refusing to allow such content on their website. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can disagree with that, or argue that in any way having people post such content is good. as I have argued against another poster in this thread, Tumblr is not the government, nor is it a 'public forum'. It's a privately owned website that reserves the right to regulate the content posted on it as they see fit. plain and simple.
And if there isn't, they can just change their TOS so that this is added. Nearly all TOS's include the "we have the right to change your TOS at any time" clause.
No, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. This was advertising/promoting a negative/harmful psychological issue in a positive way. Very bad comparison coming up but, it's like if I had a tumblr promoting the benefits of pedophilia...
clever, but you obviously lack a true grasp and understanding of the implementation of the first amendment. the 'freedom of speech' clause of the first amendment, along with most other major sections of the first amendment, only pertain to freedoms afforded to citizens by the government. this includes the freedom to assemble, the freedom to protest, and the freedom to express oneself in a public venue. none of those things apply here. Tumblr is not a public venue. It's a privately owned website, and just as any restaurant owner reserves the right to kick anyone out or refuse service to anyone, Tumblr reserves the right to ban content and remove users as they see fit. You have no 'unalienable right' that says Tumblr is afforded to you by the government. It's not.
This has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. You have a right to say what you want. You don't have a right to a forum when it's a privately owned web site.
It's not about freedom of speech. tumblr is a company and has every right to choose the rules and regulations for users. Such as facebook doesn't allow nudity and hubpages.com doesn't allow spammy posts. Plus, these people aren't asking for help, they are turning their pain and problems into a way of getting attention. Also, there are a lot of freaks out there who get a kick out of seeing people in pain, and we should not indulge these morons.
Too bad we can't ban unattainable celebrity images the same way, which wouldn't necessarily even be needed if barbie-style physique wasn't so widely glamorized in popular society. That's where these self-destructive actions stem from. And yes, I realize this will never happen, but one can hope...
I'm pretty sure choosing who can use your service, but banning others based on their viewpoints, is illegal. If it's not then shouldn't restaurants be able to not serve people based on say their religious affiliation?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
...a privately owned company or venue reserves the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason. tumblr is no different. they aren't the government, they have no legal obligation to provide you with anything. you aren't forced to use their service, nor is it a required public service. it's an online blogging website.
"...a privately owned company or venue reserves the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason"
No, they can't. Otherwise McDonald's could refuse to serve black people because they are black. That's my argument.
What I'm getting at is that there's a precedent that says private companies can't pick and chose who they service based on their own criteria. The supreme court has ruled on this. Tumblr might be setting themselves up for failure by censuring certain viewpoints, based on their own made up criteria.
Ah okay, I understand what you mean, but my point of contention is that web services have been doing this same thing for many years, and just as there's a precedent that says companies can't choose who they service based on an imaginary criteria, there's also a precedent (especially among web based services) to remove content or users that are damaging or offensive. For example, let's say someone posts on Facebook something to the effect of 'I hate Muslims, and if I had the chance I would burn them all in hell'. It's very likely that Facebook will remove that post, as I have personally seen quite a few times. However, they aren't removing it because the poster doesn't agree with Muslims, they're removing it because it's hate speech. I don't know if you have seen examples of the kind of content Tumblr is talking about in this particular case, but as a previous heavy user of Tumblr I was exposed to it frequently. These people are posting pictures of nearly-emaciated bodies, usually teenagers, with captions like 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.' Maybe I'm taking too aggressive of a stance here, but I see that as damaging and offensive. That's my only point. I agree that a service or company doesn't reserve the right to needlessly deny service, but just as McDonalds would throw out any who is yelling at customers to 'REPENT!' as they try to eat their McNuggets, regardless of their religious affiliation, I can see why Tumblr would throw out users who are promoting dangerous and unhealthy practices.
gvoakesFeb 24, 2012
Now where will I go for my thinspiration
verastilesFeb 24, 2012
That's great. People should not advertise their pain and other should not get a kick out of people's issues. It was a good decision
TaylorSwiftAlbumsFeb 24, 2012
you're absolutely right! http://jay-z-albums.net/
thespookFeb 24, 2012
Indeed. Better to keep the fear and sorrow bottled up inside until the person feels the only way out is to jump off of a bridge. Then the media can get some choice quotes from family and friends like, "He was well loved. We had no idea how much pain he was in. I wish I could have help him."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apps12327725769317915154203536Feb 24, 2012
except that you're completely missing the point. the point is these people aren't posting these things as a plea for help. they are celebrating eating disorders and self-harm. not only are they glorifying them, they are sending the message to other young, impressionable people that not only are eating disorders okay, they're cool and something that's desirable to have. that kind of self-destructive behavior has no place anywhere, and Tumblr is doing the right thing by refusing to allow such content on their website. I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can disagree with that, or argue that in any way having people post such content is good. as I have argued against another poster in this thread, Tumblr is not the government, nor is it a 'public forum'. It's a privately owned website that reserves the right to regulate the content posted on it as they see fit. plain and simple.
thespookFeb 25, 2012
I agree that Tumblr is well within their rights. This is NOT a freedom of speech issue, as I also have posted elsewhere.
squeeg50Feb 24, 2012
Tumblr has every right to do this. I'm SURE there's something in their TOS that can apply to this. I, for one, applaud them for this.
mtownFeb 25, 2012
And if there isn't, they can just change their TOS so that this is added. Nearly all TOS's include the "we have the right to change your TOS at any time" clause.
rudegarFeb 24, 2012
is fapping still under self-mutilation ?
agmlauncherFeb 24, 2012
Good. I'm not one for censorship, but I'm fine with censoring idiocy.
sephickFeb 24, 2012
I see this as a good thing. And if those concerned aren't happy about it, then they can always go elsewhere to post...
angrycat70Feb 24, 2012
So it's freedom of speech as long as its for your own good?
sephickFeb 24, 2012
No, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. This was advertising/promoting a negative/harmful psychological issue in a positive way. Very bad comparison coming up but, it's like if I had a tumblr promoting the benefits of pedophilia...
*cue in bedo bear*
thespookFeb 24, 2012
Of course, the first amendment only applies to the *government* trying to suppress speech. Freedom of speech guarantees no freedom of venue.
footbag01Feb 24, 2012
I agree seems like a freedom of speech issue, but it wasn't the government banning it, it was Tumblr.
I wonder if drug users can post experiences on Tumblr.
apps12327725769317915154203536Feb 24, 2012
clever, but you obviously lack a true grasp and understanding of the implementation of the first amendment. the 'freedom of speech' clause of the first amendment, along with most other major sections of the first amendment, only pertain to freedoms afforded to citizens by the government. this includes the freedom to assemble, the freedom to protest, and the freedom to express oneself in a public venue. none of those things apply here. Tumblr is not a public venue. It's a privately owned website, and just as any restaurant owner reserves the right to kick anyone out or refuse service to anyone, Tumblr reserves the right to ban content and remove users as they see fit. You have no 'unalienable right' that says Tumblr is afforded to you by the government. It's not.
analogassassinFeb 24, 2012
This has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. You have a right to say what you want. You don't have a right to a forum when it's a privately owned web site.
verastilesFeb 27, 2012
It's not about freedom of speech. tumblr is a company and has every right to choose the rules and regulations for users. Such as facebook doesn't allow nudity and hubpages.com doesn't allow spammy posts. Plus, these people aren't asking for help, they are turning their pain and problems into a way of getting attention. Also, there are a lot of freaks out there who get a kick out of seeing people in pain, and we should not indulge these morons.
songsquery2Feb 25, 2012
why this is happend http://www.songsquery.com/MovieSearch.aspx/html/agent_vinod.html
TechRat173Feb 25, 2012
Good move Tumblr. Those types of blogs are sick and poisonous.
prworks911Feb 24, 2012
great decision
xeromusFeb 24, 2012
Too bad we can't ban unattainable celebrity images the same way, which wouldn't necessarily even be needed if barbie-style physique wasn't so widely glamorized in popular society. That's where these self-destructive actions stem from. And yes, I realize this will never happen, but one can hope...
Margaret_C_LaureysFeb 24, 2012
amazing & shocked too..... thinking seriously about tumblers postings....
qutepangyFeb 24, 2012
Yep, agree! Am shocked at Tumblr's decision!
InnvisioFeb 24, 2012
They shouldn't have ban them, people want to become an hero!
The_SovereignFeb 24, 2012
"...people want to become heroes!"
FTFY
josephsshoreFeb 24, 2012
I'm pretty sure choosing who can use your service, but banning others based on their viewpoints, is illegal. If it's not then shouldn't restaurants be able to not serve people based on say their religious affiliation?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apps12327725769317915154203536Feb 24, 2012
...a privately owned company or venue reserves the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason. tumblr is no different. they aren't the government, they have no legal obligation to provide you with anything. you aren't forced to use their service, nor is it a required public service. it's an online blogging website.
josephsshoreMar 1, 2012
But it's still illegal to refuse service based on someone's race or sex, correct? So how is this any different?
apps12327725769317915154203536Mar 1, 2012
Because they aren't refusing service based on sex or race. They're refusing to allow negative content on their website. What exactly is your argument?
josephsshoreMar 1, 2012
"...a privately owned company or venue reserves the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason"
No, they can't. Otherwise McDonald's could refuse to serve black people because they are black. That's my argument.
What I'm getting at is that there's a precedent that says private companies can't pick and chose who they service based on their own criteria. The supreme court has ruled on this. Tumblr might be setting themselves up for failure by censuring certain viewpoints, based on their own made up criteria.
apps12327725769317915154203536Mar 1, 2012
Ah okay, I understand what you mean, but my point of contention is that web services have been doing this same thing for many years, and just as there's a precedent that says companies can't choose who they service based on an imaginary criteria, there's also a precedent (especially among web based services) to remove content or users that are damaging or offensive. For example, let's say someone posts on Facebook something to the effect of 'I hate Muslims, and if I had the chance I would burn them all in hell'. It's very likely that Facebook will remove that post, as I have personally seen quite a few times. However, they aren't removing it because the poster doesn't agree with Muslims, they're removing it because it's hate speech. I don't know if you have seen examples of the kind of content Tumblr is talking about in this particular case, but as a previous heavy user of Tumblr I was exposed to it frequently. These people are posting pictures of nearly-emaciated bodies, usually teenagers, with captions like 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.' Maybe I'm taking too aggressive of a stance here, but I see that as damaging and offensive. That's my only point. I agree that a service or company doesn't reserve the right to needlessly deny service, but just as McDonalds would throw out any who is yelling at customers to 'REPENT!' as they try to eat their McNuggets, regardless of their religious affiliation, I can see why Tumblr would throw out users who are promoting dangerous and unhealthy practices.
nicksweetheartsalmonFeb 25, 2012
How did i get windows shield tool when open the internet?
http://malware-removal.windowsupdatesonline.com/how-do-i-remove-windows-shield-tool-permanently-best-windows-shield-tool-virus-removal-instructions/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ggiwebinfoFeb 24, 2012
I'm too shocked when I've read tumbler news.........
lindahingisFeb 24, 2012
Checkout http://www.facebookipos.com, It is on live for Public