Comments on: This is an essay you probably wouldn’t show to your mum, and definitely shouldn’t be seen by kids

By: mya

mya — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:21:09 +0000

There was this guy a couple of weeks back that posted some horrible lewd comments on my photostream. What did he have on his photostream- porn! not surprising eh ? :) So i reported him. Personally, i don’t want to see porn on flickr. I would leave if they decided that anything goes. that being said, I am a HUGE fan of yours and there are no pictures on your photostream that i would willing moderate. But i think it comes from parents not wanting their kids to see boobs maybe ?

By: Chris of Arabia

Chris of Arabia — Sun, 30 May 2010 19:48:17 +0000

Although I’m only a recent visitor to your blog, I was aleady well aware that your style doesn’t suite some, but perhaps in a rather more restrictive fashion than was applied by flickr. In a sense they are only just the thin end of a particularly thick and insidious wedge.

You may not have noticed yet Brooke, but I spend a large proportion of my time working and living in Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free speech, openness and liberal tolerance of the views of others… actually, scratch those last 14 words.

You may be pleased to hear that your flickr stream is censored in total, or at least to those who don’t have the means to work around the country’s rather draconian restrictions. I’m going to put a URL in here that I hope you will be able to see. What’s instructive in not so much the page itself, but the make up of the URL and the categories under which the censorship has been applied.

URL here (hopefully) –> http://84.235.120.56/blocked.html?basictype=block&epochseconds=1275246552&requestedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fbrookeshaden%2F&categorylist=149&categorydescriptionlist=Pornography&useripaddress=85.194.127.10&username=&actiontaken=block&actionreason=by-category&actionreasondata=149&reputationdesc=&replayhash=csCe4tbpvsxqdoZOl12TGA%3D%3D

Whilst flickr is making a right royal ass of itself at times, it’s a long way from behaving on this scale and long may it remain so.

By: Geekgirly

Geekgirly — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:50:10 +0000

I find it particularity recockulous that it’s ok to watch or see images of people getting their heads blown off but to see an image of a naked person is abhorrent??? Thanks for you bringing this issue that a lot of us has experienced to light.

By: Rossina

Rossina — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:26:47 +0000

I liked the way you address the issue. I have been unfairly restricted by the Flickr staff myself -even though I do have some nudes in my stream, but none that could fit into the category-, which is why I decided to leave the site almost completely. I haven’t deleted my account, I just stopped uploading, at least for now. When I decided to leave, I didn’t explain much besides the fact that I had been marked as restricted, but I had -and still have- many of the things you say here in mind. I had something to say, and they wanted to shut me up. All kind of censorship pisses me off, and above all, it makes me feel impotent…and I hate that feeling. I guess some would say I’ve given in by retreating …I’d say I don’t see the point in fighting back and I’ll go where I can speak out loud without restrictions.
See you around Brooke :)

By: Sevgi

Sevgi — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:12:03 +0000

What I find incredible is the image they showed you as “should be moderate”. I don’t know about ads in the US but in the UK we have billboards with naked bums and TV commercials with naked bums in them so it begs the question of “why is your underwear offensive?”

As far as I’m concerned, moderate means nipple out in the open and restricted means genitals out in the open. I say “out in the open” because I don’t think implied nude should be “restricted”.

Basically, some hater somewhere has a personal grudge and decides to try to (you might wanna put your kids to bed now) fuck with your account and flickr success.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:51:35 +0000

My wife recently had this exact thing happened to her. According to the clarifying instructions they sent, this photo could be considered safe. And it is brilliant.

That being said, there is a lot of things on Flickr that are not suitable for children and perhaps some others. Flagging photos is a way of showing respect for other people’s values. I don’t have a problem with having a content rating system like we have with movies. The offense that Flickr doesn’t publish clear guidelines. However, if someone complains, they put you in Flickr jail until they sort it out. How about a warning for first offenders? How about not reacting unless they see a pattern of complaints, instead of just one?

Every Flickr star I know has been slapped into Flickr jail for pushing the limits. These are the people that make Flickr interesting.

By: Miss Aniela

Miss Aniela — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:55:26 +0000

I think what annoys me is that the censorship doesn’t make sense. We could talk forever about what should and should not be seen as offensive, and how nudity and the human body itself is natural and beautiful. But, as you said, you don’t even have any nudity in your stream. Flickr have seemingly restricted you because someone complained, but surely they should judge your stream according to the rules by which they judge everyone else, not jump to restrict you without noticing that you have no nudity anyway!

It’s bizarre, and very worrying, that Flickr seem to be making such irrational decisions; that they have TIME to make such silly mistakes in their judgement, that they can’t even keep consistent rules in their treatment of members – PAYING members. It’s almost like they are unnecessarily panicking.

This is not the first time they have made an error, and not the first time they have failed to recognise it or apologise for it (all the more worrying). For example, they have told certain members to remove links to blogs and personal websites from their photostreams, whilst ignoring others’ blatant commercial agendas.

Thanks for blogging about it. I shared the link on Facebook, hopefully we will have the power to make our voices audible on this matter!

By: Sabrina

Sabrina — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:40:25 +0000

I just read your comments about flickr censorship. A grotesque misunderstanding of your work, which shows the beauty in all things. Censorship has always been the haven of the small-minded (to put it gently). Look at Hollywood, censoring directors like Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. At least you’re in good company, joining the ranks of the censored artists everywhere.

By: Uwe Mayer

Uwe Mayer — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:47:22 +0000

I recently had the same experience with flickr. In my case it was about photos shot during the World Bodypainting Festival (WBF).
The festival was open to the public, quite a number of kids have been on the festival ground, and I even showed some of the photographic results to my mother. Nonetheless flickr thinks it might be offending.

That’s absurd.

Anyway, it seems that people must be protetcted from other people (or other people thinking, art, statements, etc.). I doubt that there is censorship without the will to guide the opinion of people in a certain direction. The only thing that might differ from country to country is the extent of censorship.
I prefer politically mature people, that are able and willing to decide what they like and dislike.
I think most censors underestimate what people can cope with. Censorship does not protect people, it only declares them immature.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:35:32 +0000

Right on! I agree with everything said. Who is Flickr to apply their vague and impossible set of “modesty” standards on the artistic community. You should put this in your coffee table book.
xo, (Intern) Kate