MySpace & Photobucket's Nude Violation Terms and Moderation are Goofy!

[NakedGary]

The attached image below Left side picture of Ray Styles, Model "God Bless America" has violated MySpace and Photobuckets terms for nudity, and yet the right side image has been on many members’ pages for a long time.

MySpace Terms of Use says "No Nudity" but doesn’t explain the threshold of what's considered nudity.

Why do you think they censored the left hand image?

Comments

.

[NakedGary]

The attached image below Left side picture of Ray Styles, Model "God Bless America" has violated MySpace and Photobuckets terms for nudity, and yet the right side image has been on many members’ pages for a long time.

MySpace Terms of Use says "No Nudity" but doesn’t explain the threshold of what's considered nudity.

Why do you think they censored the left hand image?

Comments

.

[Naturist4Ever]

>> Why do you think they censored the left hand image?

I have no idea what you mean (I don't recognize anything censored) but what I think do recognise is the right hand side image from - correct me if I am wrong - Nudes 'a Poppin event and if so I am willing to put some questionmarks also for posting such an image here. Implicitly you are advertising for a strip event - there are other sites for that.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no idea what you mean (I don't recognize anything censored) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The photo on the left was censored on MYSPACE because of "nudity", but not the photo on the right<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but what I think do recognise is the right hand side image from - correct me if I am wrong - Nudes 'a Poppin event and if so I am willing to put some questionmarks also for posting such an image here. Implicitly you are advertising for a strip event - there are other sites for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It was not identified until your post did so, so it could not be 'advertising' that event - until your post.

-Mark

[PascoDoug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist4Ever:
I have no idea what you mean (I don't recognize anything censored) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By censored I'm sure he means the pic was removed from Myspace, and not that there's anything censored in the pic itself.

So the question is why was the first pic removed while the right hand pic is quite commonly seen on Myspace pages?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but what I think do recognise is the right hand side image from - correct me if I am wrong - Nudes 'a Poppin event and if so I am willing to put some questionmarks also for posting such an image here. Implicitly you are advertising for a strip event - there are other sites for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see how the pic can be advertising an event if the event is not mentioned in any way.
"Nudes a Poppin" certainly didn't 'pop' into my mind when I first saw the image. Until you mentioned it I wouldn't have thought of it.

Even if it is from that event, all I see is a pic of two nude people and nothing inappropriate for this forum.

[Buff Man in MI]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PascoDoug:
Even if it is from that event, all I see is a pic of two nude people and nothing inappropriate for this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing inappropriate unless you count those poor unhappy souls in clothes. Yuck. But, oh how sorry I feel for those poor people.

[WacoTX]

The reason the left hand picture was removed is NOT because of the nude. It is because he is nude AND wrapped in the American flag.

[herooftime8]

Actually, I'm not sure there's enough information here; were there any complaints logged over the two nudes? How many people complained about the model wearing nothing but the Star-Spangled Banner?

People usually don't monitor these sites; they count on us to be the whistle-blowers. If something offends us, we complain, and they pull the picture, or whatever is causing offense, if it actually violates TOS.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with either picture, personally. I know some people find it objectionable that both are nudes, but offense happens all the time in life.

[Sauna]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WacoTX:
The reason the left hand picture was removed is NOT because of the nude. It is because he is nude AND wrapped in the American flag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nudism is not the taboo but patriotism is.

[Rabid_Clam]

I would venture guess that the flag was some sort of object of ire with someone. Not the flag itself but in the manner that it is used.

Of course there is nothing illegal with what is being done, and there really is not anything other than acceptable in what is being done.

Is a mystery to me.

[Soleil Nu]

It's very simple. Picture on the left was removed because someone complained about it. Picture on the right stayed because it received no complaint so far.

As Herooftime8 mentionned, there are literaly hundreds of thousands of pictures on those sites. Nobody monitors them one by one. Only those pictures for which they receive a complaint are examined, and removed if they violate the TOS. Some photo sites even go as far as removing ANY picture they receive a complaint about, whether or not it violates the TOS, simply because it's simpler that way.

Remember, these photo hosting sites are businesses, there to make money. They couldn't care less about justice or fairness.

[NakedGary]

Naturist4Ever

The purpose of initiating this Topic/Thread was not to talk about Social networking portals, events you identified as strip shows, non sanctioned resorts or advertising non nudist events. For your information, CFI/CFF removed links to this unidentified nudist resort a long time ago as this resort decided to host a non nudist adult event one per year for revenue purposes over being a sanctioned family nudist resort 363 days a year. The event you identified as a strip show is not a strip show. It’s a nude adult pageant, or contest mostly of non resort members or nudists.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

This Topic/Thread was initiated to discuss the difference in non nudist textile group’s description of their Terms of Service statement “No Nudity” with reference to censoring partially, semi, or full nudity, and what determines the threshold or reference that they go by, if any.
Most non nudists would assume “No Nudity” would mean don’t post images showing genitals, and/or of the exposed female breasts.

One of the major ad supported social networking portals that’s 2nd to Yahoo in the highest in traffic and members on the net is raging out of control and immensely popular with 13 year old to the thirty’s crowd with ninety two million, yes 92,000,000 registered members [Increasing 1 million each 2 days] customizing their page, profiles with HTML, images, videos, graphics, and glitter, comments, blogs, and friends lists. A whole new cottage industry of ad supported sites has popped up to support these portals and users with code generator sites, image, video, graphics, album, animation providers, hosts, archiving, and storage.

A huge problem has resulted in the vague statement of “No Nudity” by these portals, providers and hosts along with the ability to monitor, moderate, or censor illegal, inappropriate, sexually explicit, vulgar, and violent content posted by young people and underage users. Some of these images, comments, and sexual content migrating, being copied, and placed into other forums such as this without regard to strict enforced rules on sexual content of non nudist material, as the younger users do not often read or want to understand rules or Terms of Service.

As a result of complaints, and actual murders, rapes and child abductions, these portals are out of control and seem to be a vehicle or magnet for child molesters, so they are banned by most school and college systems, employers, workplaces, and at home by some parents for younger than legal age children. At Government request to clean up their act, this largest portal has hired hundreds of moderators, and is testing beta software to tag nudity and sexually explicit content by attempting to monitor each post and user profile.

Unless something is done soon to correct this out of control next to impossible task to clean up their act, these social network sites will have to change their category to adult sites with disclaimers, for those only of 18 years and older only, or go to subscription or pay sites with the same age limitation and certification.


I did some rough figuring of the huge numbers of these social networks, and came to the conclusion its next to impossible to censor, moderate, or correct this nudity and sexual content by manual means especially without and reference or standards to go by or even published..

If they hired 500 censors or moderators full time 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week to spend two minutes on each page, they would have 180, 000 user accounts per moderator which could only censor or moderate 1,200 per week per moderator, so it would take all the moderators or censors 150 weeks or + 3 years just go over accounts today, not counting the constant changing of the user pages, new posts, and the 1,000,000 new members each day and half or 666,666 new users per day or 1,333 new members per day per each of the 500 censors or moderators.

Enough about the problems of these social networking portals and their “No Nudity” and sexual statements without reference. You can go to any search engine and type “Problems+MySpace” or what ever the portal and get pages of reference.

Suggestion:

1. Yes, leave the nudists, plain nudity, and nudist and naturist images, video, and media to the people, sites, and portals that understand, moderate, censor, and know what they are doing such as this Naturist, Family Nudist portal, site, and forum as CFI/CFF does.

2. Simple; The Non Nudist portals, providers, & hosts take any Cities, County, or State ordinance on public nudity and publish it after the statement “No Nudity” on their TOS Term of Service and membership form or page. Example:

“No Nudity” = “Any genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus, anal region, or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or below the upper edge of the areola thereof on any female that shows on any profile, post, blog, or comment.

These social network portals are working with mostly with inexperienced underage textiles. The portals and users do not understand what plain nudity is, how to define nudity without sexual connotation, or how to determine the threshold or point at which violates a standard without reference. In effect they have made their own problem, it’s out of control, and they have no idea how to correct it.

Now back to the attached images. Nothing is wrong with either; they are both appropriate to be posted on this forum and CFI.

“WacoTX” might be correct in that the flag should not be used as a drape, worn, or have anything attached to it as the image shows [small letters at bottom edge] and reason for the censorship as this link below on flag etiquette indicates. I personally feel the portal censored the image due to buttocks showing as they have deleted images showing a tiny amount of hair at the top of the pubic hair line, and budges or outlines of genitals showing on opaque covering on shorts, pants etc.

The image on the right I believe due to the huge number of millions of posts, and pages, just hasn’t been come across by the staff, censors, or so called moderators that each have their own standards of what determines a violation of nudity without any reference to go by or published. Complaints by users are deleted without opening, or never acted on.

Link to - U.S. Flag Etiquette site (http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html)

.

[Eric6420]

I would say that the left picture was remooved because it is a beautiful naked man, and that it may be interpret as gay erotica, the right picture is a sexy woman with a small man, so it looks very heterosexual.

[DenitaLC]

I believe it was removed because the moderator (or whoever decides these things, or that particular one) was male.

Just a bit of a sexist view of it...wish I check my hypothesis though!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Frodo]

I think DenitaLC is right. A female image would not have been pulled. Another question, are violent or hate images censored? I bet not. Seems strange to me that violence in all of it's forms is Ok with American people, but at the same time they section off the body and say that certain parts are bad and must be banned. Why are some parts different than others in the mind of many people? I think there needs to be a re-evaluation of priorities.