What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
109 Comments
- mwosh, on 10/11/2007, -6/+152Is it just me, or does it feel like diggers want another thing to revolt about?
- EatingPie, on 10/11/2007, -19/+151What a collossal bunch of whiners we have become. Censorship? THIS is what happened to Malingering, in her own words:
"This means that without a Flickr account you cannot see the photos, and even if you have a Flickr account, the thumbnail is all snowy until you decide that you will break the "safe" barrier and click into "unsafe" territory to see what is behind the black pixels."
So you can still see the photos, just that you need to be a registered user, and explicitly click thru the thumblnail... but THAT is censorship?
My problem here is that we toss around the word censorship with such wanton abandon, it starts to lose its real meaning. Consider Malingering's "struggle" against pre-civil war America when people were actually killed for printing anti-slavery literature, or the Nazi book burnings. And this still goes on in other parts of the world... yet we spend our energy on this?... where the pictures remained totally 100% accessible! :-(
-Pie - CoachZed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44If this is one of Flickr's "best" photographers, I'm afraid to see who their worst are.
- l1wulf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28These photos are from "some of Flickr's best photographers"? Uh. Right.
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -6/+33Thank you pie and mwosh, for having some sense.
If you don't like this, then USE SOMETHING ELSE. It's a damn website, if they do something that really bothers you to that extent, put your photos somewhere else. You are NOT tied to it. - bovox, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33I checked out those pictures and they're a bit ... creepy. They really don't have any socially-redeeming value and exist solely in mean-spirited manner. If this woman insists on discourteously making fun of people and posting their pictures on the internet without their permission, then at the very least she should anonymize the photos by photoshopping small black rectangles over their eyes.
This woman is a photojournalist hack. - carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+29they were in public places, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
- kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Yahoo can F up anything - they are good that way.
- joe90210, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22are we gonna have a front page story every time some nobody photographer get;s their crappy pics removed from flickr?
- GonadHunter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Best photographers? Some woman with an expensive camera who takes pictures of her cats and badly dressed people and comes up with ever so mature titles is now one of the best?
- kylebrothert, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21I'm not sure the show is over. It shouldn't take multiple appeals to make your photos viewable. Their editorial department is apparently trigger happy.
Some photos are obscene. But, short of nudity or graphic violence, potentially offensive photos should be allowed. People don't need to be protected from the real world. - markdr123, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21Pie and mwosh, you are both totally right.
- vango, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21im with you kyle
they never said that her pics were obscene, in fact her update to the story is just as interesting
they say they originally banned her pics because of complaints and they felt like the had to do "something"
meaning they looked at the pics, saw nothing that went against their TOS and still banned her because of whiners
i say keep digging especially since fname sounds like a Flickr vip "nothing to see here, move along" - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13First off, this photographer is a jerk to begin with....so the hell with him/her.
- Pic0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"Flickr has apologized.
Hello Malingering,
First off, we're very sorry!
I've gone through and remoderated your photostream as safe
(except for those that you've moderated yourself).
We owe you an explanation. It seems that your photostream
attracts quite a bit of attention from the community, and
when this happens you turn up for review by staff again and
again. I'm afraid when this happens, we start feeling
compelled to "do something". In your case, it was clearly
the wrong thing. "
the pictures on that page are total *****, besides the cat picture and that is alright - dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9If you describe it using the word "censorship" and other scary words, probably..
- inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9> Is it just me, or does it feel like diggers want another thing to revolt about?
To some extent, yes, but the real story here is that Flickr was once very open and free and you could post and say just about anything without concern about being moderated based on someone else's whim. When you have that kind of environment, it fosters a real sense of community that is very rare nowadays on the Internet. Frankly, it's a lot of fun. A year or so ago when Flickr sold out to Yahoo, a lot of us expressed concerns that Yahoo's influence would ruin the site--just like it has ruined almost every site it has bought out prior. Flickr's founders were all over the discussions promising that Yahoo wouldn't get its nose too far under the tent.
But, as we're seeing, the Yahooification is starting. This great site that so many people have spent time building up as a great place is gradually being torn down and hammered into some predetermined shape that will make some executive at Yahoo happy (an executive who has probably never even used Flickr.) When you look at it that way, it's less about people wanting something to revolt against, and more about people disliking the whole "piss in the pool" attitude that Yahoo brings to the party.
One of the ways that Yahoo has ruined the sites they've bought out is by introducing too many restrictions and rules. Years and years ago, I watched Webrings disintegrate thanks to Yahoo's interference and rule-happy approach to sites. And with Flickr, that has started too. Last month, Flickr members lost their ability to sign in to Flickr without having a Yahoo account. You also have restrictions on tagging and contacts now. Flickr has apparently stepped up its efforts to stamp out "offensive" images. You have thousands of people having a great time on a site and someone interfering with that. It's not just people looking for something to complain about. - Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Additionally, she is not a "a photojournalist hack" - She's not a journalist in any way shape or form. From her own site, Ive managed to work out that she is a visual arts student and does freelance photography as a hobby. That is not photojournalism.
- ModOps, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Flickr isn't the government. When Flickr decides of it's own accord that it doesn't want certain pictures on their service, that's up to them. It's not censorship. Photographers who have their pictures removed from Flickr can put them up somewhere else.
Buried for not being a censorship issue. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12None of my photos are censored...oh that's right I host them myself...point being if you rely on someone else to host your pictures just be grateful that they are in the first place
- atbnet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Do you know how hard it is to prove libel let alone actually win a case? If it were so easy, none of the celeb gossip magazines would be in business.
- Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6OH SNAP! I just shot myself in the foot, and blew most of my leg off in the process!!!! Apologies for the previous 2 comments!
I clicked a link on the article, and I assumed that it was linking me to the Flickr account in question - Turns out that belonged to the original Flickr censorship scandal (Rebekah). It was this photographer that I was sticking up for!
After checking out the ACTUAL Flickr account that this article is based on, I have to agree with bovox's comments and say that these photos are just plain weird!! - endustry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yahoo!: "Hmmmmm, AOL has disintegrated leaving millions upon millions of grandmas, luddites, technophobes and internet noobies without a brand to trust on the dangerous, dangerous information superhighway. Seeing how Google has pretty much mopped the floor with us, maybe we can earn a quick buck being the WalMart of the Web. Yeah, okay."
- Ninnux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Being careful is not censorship, it's being smart.
- mapkinase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5It was a mistake and they apologized.
- mlvassallo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't get it. The let you host your images on their servers, and you bitch when they put some restrictions on it?
Pony up the cash for your own webspace and put your ***** there. - bouche, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5yeah and everything I saw claimed in the article was false. It challenged me to view a photo that flickr allegedly censored and it came up fine. that ***** article can bit my ass.
- j4200, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3but all she does is take pictures of others and makes fun of them. yahoo has to cover their ass. they could be held liable for her harassment and defaming of people if they don't do anything. If she wants rights to post anything she wants, she should get her own website. Untill then, she should shut up and put up with the rules sanctioned by flickr.
if you want a pure example of free speech , maddox is all you need - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4On one hand you are right, it's not real censorship. They are a private company, and can regulate what is on their network however they so choose. However, in this new era of web 2.0 where there are virtual monopolies on things like image hosting, Flickr has got the largest following and therefore has got the largest responsibility to at least keep a general sense of fairness on their website. After all, that was the reason the "revolt" happened on Digg, right? Nobody would argue that Digg didn't have a right to censor the numbers, but many people felt as if it was unfair given the public, open nature of the site.
I think that Flickr did the right thing by reinstating her images. - newstart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Flickr is doing the right thing. Imagine any one of us ending on that ladies flickr page who takes pics of badly dressed people. Who is she to judge us anyway! Ban her atleast flickr!
- ff89, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If this "Malingering" person is one of Flickr's "best" photographers, then I'm ***** Ansel Adams.
And did anyone notice she seems to have a breast obsession? I wouldn't censor her photos, but a lot do seem to be in poor taste. - TheLD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why are people whining about what appears to be a genuine mistake?
People aren't happy unless there is trouble about, are they? - lopla, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This is getting RETARDED. Flickr is a private site. When you sign up you agree to use the site on THEIR terms, if you are too f'ing stupid to understand this then please F-OFF!
- michael.calfee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I never thought Flickr of all things would get on the digg burn list. It's like the Salem witch trials around here.
- MrViklund, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Inaccurate.
- jedinate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've been a member of Flickr for 2 years and have never had a problem with them. If I did I would leave. This photographer is FAR from one of the best on Flickr and if he doesn't want to be "censored" he should post elsewhere. I will say as I always do in these types of situations, to all those that bitch ... "No one is forcing you to post on Flickr if you don't like there rules leave."
I can name about 1000 other places to post pictures on the internet, Flickr is not your only option. - wellyuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Best photographers"? Wow.. the standard of flickr photography sucks if these are the best.
- inspecality, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/206279788/
Photo of Malingering. So she takes photos of women hotter than herself, then is a total bitch. What a valuable asset to Flickr. - TechCF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Funny this beeing dugg up on digg just after I signed up as a translator for Zooomr :P
- frostcrow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
It isn't the kind of Censorship anyone really gives a rats ass about. When the government wants text books edited to their liking or information removed /added for their agenda, we might give two *****. When a nut group wants books burned to prevent people from reading the information in them, we might give two *****. When the goverment or society tells us we can not discuss this or that then we might give two *****. When our lives or freedom are in danger of being taken if we speak out against this or for that, then we might give two *****.
When "flicker" is making people click thumbnails to see your stupid pictures... find yourself a new host if you don't like it, STFU and GBTW you whiney, spoiled, attention whore. - markdr123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I hear what you're saying. However having hundreds of photos of people walking down the street makes her more of a voyeur than "one of Flickr's best photographers".
- snowshoeless, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's "Its"
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Yahoo is the AOL of the 21st century. May they spiral into insignificance just as AOL did!!
- noerrorsfound, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Flickr Continues to Censor it is Best Photographers?
I believe you mean to use "its" without the apostrophe. - GhostWithToast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As is usually the case, they apologized and reinstated the correct status. When millions of people use a service, there's bound to be a mistake here and there. Of course, getting digged might help ;-)
- BGFeltenink, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Censorship by definition is apt to this particular case. It doesn't mean it is anywhere near as grand as government censorship or having jackbooted thugs burn your book collection, but as a word it fits. What other term would you use? When someone prevents the voice of another from being heard (or seen) they have censored that person.
This does not mean it is illegal censorship. It's a ***** business practice given the ideals of freedom held by so many internet users but it is not illegal. I don't think any of the rational people in the debate are really even calling it that. Certainly it is no more illegal than if my local laundromat were to deny customers based on what types of garments they own. It would, however be a ***** business practice and barring some sort of local monopoly on laundromats people would probably take their business elsewhere and let them suffer the financial consequences. - mbthompson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Marked as inaccurate. She has already gotten her photos back up on Flickr and they have apologized. RTFA
- ddn3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think that image of the pier was censored because its incredibly overexposed. --stop
- thekronz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you think that girl in the pink is single?
- x00x, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2David Letterman and CBS provide an excellent rationale for what Flickr has been forced to do in an effort to limit any liability the posting of unflattering images of this kind might bring against the company.
What Flickr has done is quite understandable and is simply a matter of protecting itself from the same sort of liability suffered by CBS when forced to come up with a considerable amount of money to settle a case by someone who felt ridiculed in a David Letterman comedy bit a few years back.
The regularly appearing comedy bit which featured silly multiple choice questions juxtaposed alongside people filmed randomly and unknowingly was quite funny but occasionally rude and insulting many of which venturing an area that made CBS' vulnerable to enormous liability as a result.
The case several years ago involved a spectator, an older woman with a dowdy, matronly look, attending the annual tennis tournament held in Queens, NY as the merciless butt of Letterman's incessant ridicule, .the camera focusing on her in the crowd voraciously chomping on a peach in as unflattering manner imaginable, repeatedly shown again and again throughout the sketch. The story of the woman's lawsuit and CBS out of court settlement making news at the time. The comedy
routine a staple of the David Letterman show hasn't been seen lately. -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is