What is Digg?83 Comments
- robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -34/+111People wave the term censorship around so much these days that it is truly loosing its meaning. America is a country where you are free to say what you want. However, just because we live in a free country DOES NOT mean that companies have to help you say what you want! Flickr and Digg are under ZERO obligation to not remove content they don't want. Why is it when hate speech is removed from here it is ok, but when the HD-DVD code is posted, it's censorship?
I don't agree with what they've done but I'm sorry- what Flickr has done is not censorship. Neither was Digg removing the HD-DVD hex code. They're private companies that can do whatever they what with the material on their servers. If material is going to create a problem for it, they're going to remove it. Yes, they can't survive without their users but if you don't like what they do then go somewhere else- it's as simple as that. In fact, that's the heart of capitalism. - Sheaf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38I'm really surprised when companies who are built off social networks do this kind of thing. Transparency is the key. If you can't give your customers a good reason for doing what you did, maybe you shouldn't have done it.
- Durb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29The author, Thomas Hawk, is the CEO of Zoomr, a flickr competitor. Doesn't anyone see a conflict of interest in his reporting? Flickr
- robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -17/+31@sicko
"As a community site, Flickr (or Digg, or anywhere else) belongs as much to the community contributing as to the owners."
Prove it.
@salgat
"Censorship is a general statement, it doesn't always have to apply to the law. Learn what censorship really means next time."
Yes, it's becoming a general statement because people are diluting it's meaning. Check up on it yourself. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20FTA: "In joining Flickr, all of our members agree to abide by the Yahoo! Terms of Service and our Community Guidelines. Actions taken by the team to ensure that any content or activity on the site resides within these boundaries is not and cannot be viewed as censorship." (my emphasis)"
That pretty much sums it up. If you agree to terms of service before joining, you have to abide by those terms. As a matter of fact, TOS are often written in an ambiguous nebulous way to leave room for the owner of the site/service to remove things or act as they see fit. Moral of the story: read the fine print.
With regards to the whole Rebekka thing, from the BBC article:
"This had nothing to do with fear of a lawsuit, but with deeply held beliefs about the kind of place we want Flickr to be. Unfortunately, those beliefs were misapplied in this case, but we still hold the general principle to be true. He said Flickr had removed the comments because there was 'personal information of the infringing company's owner and suggestions for how best to exact revenge'."
Well there you have it. Nothing else needs to be said. If someone uses your website to post personal information of someone else, then that person is subsequently harassed by 14 year old jackasses, guess who's going to get sued to hell. Not the 14 year old, or the 14 year old's parents. You are. They were covering their ass. This happens in so many forums so frequently that no one should be surprised by the actions.
I suppose it would have been easier to delete the individual posts, but whatever. Their website, their rules. No one is forcing anyone to use it. - pfranz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13It is their site. Yes, the content is created by users but as a company they get to choose how to use their resources. It's a picture sharing site, not a forum raise awareness and discuss your personal injustice. If they want it to be that too, then they're allowed. If tomorrow they wanted to make flickr a website that only allowed you to upload pictures of dogs wearing silly hats, they're allowed. They're just choosing the kind of company they want to be. If nobody likes it and the company fails, then it's their fault.
- EntangledPhysx, on 10/11/2007, -8/+18They're a big social company... can you all not see the problem with them censoring their content? Like salgat said, its nothing to do with the law, its about not having the users interest in mind
- robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15@Sheaf and unusualbob
There's no proof in what you said. The only thing you've proven is that Digg needs its users to survive- but we're not debating that. If Digg makes a series of choices that piss off its users, then yes, it will die, but the users still don't own Digg. Same goes for Flickr. - hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15@robbh66: You are incorrect. You have confused "censorship" with the legal issue of Constitutionality under the First Amendment. While Flickr is not violating the First Amendment -- as it only applies to the government -- they are definitely censoring content.
From Miriam-Webster:
censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
If people were claiming their First Amendment rights were being violated, they would be incorrect. But if they claim they are being censored, they are right on the money. - robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12@Sheaf
I'm arguing in terms of who owns the site as in those who control it. In no way am I debating that digg needs its users or flickr it's photographers- both are absolutely worthless without them. On occasion something that's said or posted on digg or uploaded to flickr causes a controversy and or potential legal consequences. As a result, these sites remove the offending material and if they lose users over it then that's a consequence they have to accept. When it's all said and done, however, it's still their site.
@hipnerd
You're right. Enjoy it, i don't say that often! - euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I highly recommend that everybody read the above comments as they progress down to this one. What all that did is really explore and explain the spasms many digg users have whenever anything to do with "censorship" arises.
Private companies censoring their users is not illegal. It's not even unamerican -- it's business.
People screaming censorship here are fallaciously basing their argument on this being illegal. Then, when called on it, they demand that you define censorship: "If deleting things you don't like isn't censorship, then WHAT IS? (+999 diggs)." Well, yeah, it is censorship when Digg removes my comments... but it's not illegal. Misinterpreting the law doesn't make it so, no matter how many diggs you get.
Being part of an online community does not mean I own part of the community. There's a lot more than "servers, bandwidth" provided by Digg/Flickr. They came up with a damn good idea, spent money building it, and continue to spend money managing it. They have people running them, and these people are charged with the task of managing things in the best interest of the revenue stream. When they "censor" you, they're doing so because they believe that's what's best for their revenue stream. Deal with it. Or better yet, if you don't like it, then go make "the next Digg." See how that turns out for you.
If you don't like it, then you can git out. That's what's great about our free country... you can remove your whining bitch ass whenever you feel like it.
So whine about the business practices of these companies if you wish, but quit citing "CENSORSHIP -- ILLEGAL" every time you get your little feelings hurt. - navinjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Correct. This is the very definition of conflict of interest.
- heavensblade23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Nothing Yahoo does surprises me after I found out they had turned people in to the Communist party to be jailed for dissident speech in China.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@omgwtfroflmaox2
or theres also 3. find a competitor who has a more favorable TOS - thomashawk, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13Actually I love Flickr. I use it every single day. Spend hours on there every single day. While I'm working on Zooomr too I do not see Flickr/Zooomr as either/or propositions. I use both. Lots of people use both. I disclose my position with Zooomr though prominently in the post to disclose any perceived conflict of interest.
I'm critical of Flickr in this case for two reasons really.
First they censored me a while back. They pulled a photo I uploaded of Michael Crook and dozens of comments that went with it and permanently deleted them. I asked them (first privately then many times publicly) for color on this matter and they refused to give it to me. So that kind of pissed me off.
Secondly though, Flickr will be a better place if the censorship is dialed back a bit. We'll all be better off. When they say that going forward they will err on the side of caution after this incident and then lock the very thread that deals with this criticism I found that a bit much.
The thing is sometimes you have to use these higher profile issues to force positive change and flickr taking censorship more seriously would be a positive change in my mind.
I plan to use Flickr for a long, long, time. I love it there. Some of my best friends are there. When they do something right like add sets of sets or geotagging or whatever, I'm very happy to praise them for that. But when the do stuff that's bad for the community I think I have every right to publish about it and will continue to do so in the future.
I've had over 40,000 comments left on my photos at Flickr. I'm very much a part of that community. I also interact myself quite a bit there with others. In fact. I would bet that I've left more comments and faved more photos than anyone even on the Flickr staff, even the founders of the company.
I hope that Flickr does the right thing here. Flickr is taking their lumps over this, but if in the end they outline substantive commitments to reducing censorship on the site, all of us will be better off.
Power to the people. - Sheaf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@robbh66
We might be getting into semantics here, but you were arguing with Sicko's statement, "As a community site, Flickr (or Digg, or anywhere else) belongs as much to the community contributing as to the owners."
The most important aspect of a web site for me is the content. Design, usability, and speed all take a back seat to it. Flickr's content does not really belong to Flickr, does it? I don't see how you can argue that Flickr belongs as much to the photographers who upload their photos as to Yahoo! - aidano, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5robbh66 may have been wrong on whether or not it is censorship, but his general point is correct. If you want no censorship, go somewhere else, no biggie.
- sicko, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8he also uses and publicly talks about flickr in very glowing terms most of the time. According to his account on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomashawk/ ), he has 8794 photos hosted there, and 6307 contacts through flickr. I think that qualifies him as an avid user of the site he is reporting on. :)
- danielrh9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Honestly, I could not care less about flickr. The real flickr is dead and has been ever since Yahoo bought them. This is just another self inflicted stake in their heart that pushes me even further away.
- Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -31/+34@robb
Censorship is a general statement, it doesn't always have to apply to the law. Learn what censorship really means next time. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@entangledphysx
Again, no one is forcing you to agree to the TOS or use the software. You essentially have 2 choices:
1) Shut up and agree to the creator's TOS or
2) build your own software complete with TOS that you created (holy *****, you mean that's where that FOSS movement came from??? but even that has TOS..oh the irony)
It really is that simple. If you feel that you NEED to use those tools/services, then you NEED to agree to the TOS. If you want to play their game, you have to play by their rules..much like living in a country. Follow the country's laws or get the hell out and start your own somewhere. Now why does that sound so familiar. - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8So, is "defense of intellectual property" the new censorship?
- Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2would conflict of interest spread to someone who uses a competiting service
because then I cant complain about the following services
gmail
aol
multiple other jabber accounts
a few openids (and with that a zooomr account)
Yahoo ( and with that a flickr account see few openids as I use idproxy too)
I should stay entirely unbiased if that spreads to someone who uses a competitor by choice
how broad can a conflict of interest reach
I dont work for them
but I do use them - PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Flickr, it's okay to call it censoring, it is your service, after all. Just come clean.
It gives reason for a competitor to provide better service.
Maybe Thomas Hawk would like to come clean too about his role and compete. :) - jacekpoplawski, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What about person who deleted the photos and comments from flickr?
Is he fired or still a yahoo employee? - gdcosta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@entangledphysx
Disagree and don't use the service or use the service and abide by their rules. Fighting against the possibly flawed concept of TOS's is one thing, but to argue that one should ignore the status quo due to laziness seems pretty poor. - CourageousRobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3For what it's worth, censorship is not restricted to government.
From the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Main Entry: Censor
Function: transitive verb
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable "
From Wikipedia:
"Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist." - mykos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The could choose between 100% verifiably clear copyright infringement suffered by one of their most loyal and productive users, or a very remote chance of a defamation claim from an oily jerk with a lawyer.
I can't believe they ditched their own in this case. Shameful. - hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@euphemize: "The submitter misrepresented the article, "
The submitter did not misrepresent the article. Here is the headline and description: "Flickr claims their censoring "is not and cannot be viewed as censorship." Thomas Hawk outlines recent censorship by Flickr, and their continuing refusal to admit or address the issue.
We have already established that Flickr did indeed censor, and they claimed in their letter they did not. He actually quoted them directly. No mention of anything being illegal here, you'll notice.
@euphemize: "and every whining poster (which is not all of them -- several above were very competent posts) was basing their arguments on the implication that this was illegal."
Prove it. Give me a quote. I already asked once. I've read the comments myself. People can be annoyed, angry or disappointed without claiming that what Flickr did was illegal.
@euphemize: "If Flickr is so abusive, and if these online communities are just a bunch of kindred spirits that happened to bump into each other on the same website, then why not, as I said, just make another?"
Eventually, if Flickr's policies continue to annoy people, I have no doubt that would happen. You have a strange view of the world. Flickr's polices weren't brought down from the mountain as the word of God. If enough people complain, they will change.
@euphemize:"Saying "They're censoring us!" by itself is meaningless. Calls for violent action, etc., can be legally censored by the government even. So to suggest that the act of censoring in and of itself is a crime or something "bad" is inherently flawed."
No one called for violence in this case, so that argument is flawed. In general, people don't like it when a voice is silenced unfairly. They realize that theirs might be next. So people read the article and decided that Flickr was wrong and the girl was getting a raw deal.
@euphemize: "I never said I didn't like it here, so why would I leave? I don't feel slighted by everything because I don't have a victim complex."
Yeah, but you sure do whine a lot when people don't agree with you.
@euphemize: "See the post directly under this one by omgwtfroflmaox2. If you don't like their terms, then git out. Legally, you have to."
I'll respond with my own quote:
"We screwed up and for that I take full responsibility,"
Co-founder of Flickr, Stewart Butterfield, BBC News
Yahoo has admitted that they were wrong and apologized for their mistake, so the only one still defending their actions is you. - flickr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You guys claiming a 'conflict of interest conspiracy' are simply being foolish... Thomas Hawk is my very most active Flickr contact. I don't know about you but uploading thousands of breathtaking photographs to a social photo site just doesn't sound like a great way to start to sabotage them. Mr. Hawk is just very concerned about photographer's rights and free speech in general. If his coworkers at Zooomr did something like this to a photographer on their service you can bet he would be equally upset and vocal.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't get it, what pictures were taken down? I have ZERO context here. You all can and should debate the high level ideas of censorship but can some one please tell me of what this is all referring to? I'm pointing to NULL right now..
- bry0000000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2In other news, Authoritarianism isn't authoritarianism... it is democracy!
[/Commander Guy] - chicagobiker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I think the problem that we're seeing here in the last few years is the latest generations inability to see that the tools that they are using to express themselves they do not own nor do they have any stake in it's fundamental creation or upkeep.
Unless you have setup your own backbone to the internet and run your own servers on cables you paid for to connect to the other internet backbones nothing you post online is protected under free speech from the private company you send that content to.
If your public library, or city hall, were to give you a platform to speak and then removed your content, THAT is censorship. If the city council tells a newspaper that they can't publish a story THAT is censorship.
If Harper Collins decides not publish your book that is NOT censorship. And if Blogspot (Google) removes your blog, that is NOT censorship under the guise of free speech.
You want a voice, go yell on a street corner, or publish your own newspaper.
Our real problem here in the US with freedom of speech is we've allowed all of our media companies to consolidate into basically being controlled by three people who all have the same voice. 40 years ago every newspaper in every city in every state was owned by private indivdual companies. There were literally thousands of free presses from every corner of the nation. Now, we're down to about 2, and what has sprung up to take it's place for the individual voice? Blogs. But sadly blogs are mostly hosted by the same corporations who own the news and they are NOT the press nor is the content the produce guaranteed the free speech protection of the writer. They're services and are ruled by the terms of their private owners.
Flickr can delete all the photos they want and they don't even have to have a reason. It's their service. You don't like it. Leave and make your own. But don't complain to AT&T when they decide the T1 line your leasing from them is broadcasting content they don't approve of and cancel your service.
The media monopoly needs to be broken up. Laws that were in place to stop corporate ownership of newspapers, radio and TV in more than one market need to be reinstated. The FCC failed us the American people when it let companies like Sony and Clear Channel gobble up our media, and instead of storming their offices with pitchforks and torches we took our fights to the internet and agreed to let Google and Flickr host our dissent. Except we decided not to realize that they can delete our dissent with the same ease that we posted it.
Go search out the movie "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" for a better understanding of what happened 10 years ago with the FCC and media conglomeration.
And please, quit using the word "censorship" when some private company decides you can't say what you want in the lobby of their offices. They have every right to shut you up and kick you out to the curb. - hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1She did not violate the TOS. Someone else left a comment on her picture that may have violated the TOS (hard to say since it got removed.) She had nothing to do with that.
Deleting her photo was not an appropriate response. - addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Isn't this what you call an oxymoron (or some other dry convention)?
Speaking of Moron, I know someone from the UK with that last name it fit him well, - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2i didn't know flickr is part of the legislative branch of the united states of america. i always thought they are a private company who can, in this case, ***** up their own company in any way they can.
apparently, to the yeyhoos in here, flickr represents the state of montana in the senate.
must be nice to not have seen actual censorship in your life, you know, the one where they jail and beat you with a stick and threaten to kill your family and put you through electroshock therapy, that you see censorship in every corner.
grow a pair. it's the internet. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@robbh66: "People wave the term censorship around so much these days that it is truly loosing its meaning."
This case is the very definition of censorship. But coming from someone who cannot spell "losing," I can see you are unfamiliar with dictionaries. - MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The Nazis said the same things about censorship and look what happened.
- seoul_scurry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Thomas Hawk shoots great pictures, but other than that he's an all around massive douche bag. He's the CEO of a competing website and often comes up with these "Flickr crisis" posts. He posts a lot of pictures on Flickr and normally acts all good buddy, but he's always on the lookout to jump up on his soap box and start preaching. I'll bet money his company follows Flickr's lead on this policy.
Douche baggery! - Kazrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1He's Tony Hawk's evil brother. Kind of like Don Swayze.
- Mafoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Is Yahoo trying to drive people to switch to Google for more and more internet tools? Seriously, why can't they take a hint and learn that the user is always right.
- ddn3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Can someone please explain what the ***** they are "censoring"? Is this nudity? Offensive? Hateful? Copyrighted? What the hell is the context?
- TitaniumLizzard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There is nothing to see here, we did not censor your story. Move along.
- CourageousRobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Two months ago when I raised a different matter of censorship by Flickr Stewart Butterfield responded to me that I he thought I didn't know what censorship meant linking to wikipedia and trying to dismiss that censorship couldn't happen at Flickr."
You would think that as a CEO, Thomas Hawk would have some sort of grasp on the concepts of commas, run on sentences, and proof-reading. - euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@hipnerd
The submitter misrepresented the article, and every whining poster (which is not all of them -- several above were very competent posts) was basing their arguments on the implication that this was illegal. Their arguments make considerably less sense if they do accept that it is legal. If Flickr is so abusive, and if these online communities are just a bunch of kindred spirits that happened to bump into each other on the same website, then why not, as I said, just make another?
Saying "They're censoring us!" by itself is meaningless. Calls for violent action, etc., can be legally censored by the government even. So to suggest that the act of censoring in and of itself is a crime or something "bad" is inherently flawed.
I never said I didn't like it here, so why would I leave? I don't feel slighted by everything because I don't have a victim complex.
See the post directly under this one by omgwtfroflmaox2. If you don't like their terms, then git out. Legally, you have to. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1And what do you expect from morons who have named their site "Flickr" but don't have any video on it?
Where, exactly, is the "flick" in Flickr? - djAnakin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So... what exactly was censored by Flickr? I've been a loyal member of theirs for a while now and I've never had any problems with the 3000 pics i've got uploaded.
- Tourney3p0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Because the user isn't always right. Hell, the user rarely even knows their ass from a hole in the ground.
- darklord5907, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I am sick of these companies backing down over stupid ***** from people who don't know what they are talking about.
The woman violated an agreement made when she created that account that her material is due subject to deletion if needed. Not censorship, that is suppression, and suppression is force. This was a private company acting on what it thought right and some idiots had to rush in and blow it up, and THEN the company feels the need to back down. All their decision but that seems forced to me.
And @Stonr
A Filkr user has an article or blog post or picture thread or what not up and Filkr deleted it because they thought it was against their terms of Service, then Thomas Hawk blows things out of proportion and now it's a huge deal with 'censorship', I think everyone else can put their minds on actual censorship then trying to make some girl feel like a victim, which is all that ever happens when these things come about. - nicktripp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Refusing to address the issue?
http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/40074/page3/#reply213196
and
http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2007/05/sometimes_we_ma.html -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 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