Google kicks clothes free bloggers to the curb

[Davin]

Google changes policy in a move that restrict and eliminates clothes free blogs.

They will no longer allow nude images on blogger

http://clothesfreelife.com/2015/02/23/google-kicks-clothes-free-bloggers-to-the-curb/

[simonsebs]

Well everyone's moved over to Tumblr anyway.

[jasenj]

From the email from Google in the article,
"In the coming weeks, we’ll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually
explicit or graphic nude images or video. We’ll still allow nudity
presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or
where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking
action on the content."

So they are not getting rid of all nudity, just the "sexually explicit or graphic" nudity. I think any "real" nudist/naturist blog would fall into the allowed category pretty easily.

[nudeM]

From the email from Google in the article,
"In the coming weeks, we’ll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually
explicit or graphic nude images or video. We’ll still allow nudity
presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or
where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking
action on the content."

So they are not getting rid of all nudity, just the "sexually explicit or graphic" nudity. I think any "real" nudist/naturist blog would fall into the allowed category pretty easily.

Problem is, who is going to define "sexually explicit or graphic"? Even the casual nudist websites have been virtually taken over by sexually explicit images. Sure there are still some good ones out there, but who is going to define? As you know, most of the nude sites that show only women (not all) are mostly okay, but once you show the penis, the rules suddenly change. Again, there are some very good sites out there, but my question is, once you show nude males and children, the rules suddenly change. It remains to be seen.

[jasenj]

I agree. How "sexually explicit or graphic" is defined is very important. But the headline is inaccurate and seems intentionally inflammatory.

[jasenj]

And porn is now safe on Blogger again.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/google-caves-to-porn-lovers-rescinds-blogger-ban-on-adult-content/

[usuallylurk]

I agree. How "sexually explicit or graphic" is defined is very important. But the headline is inaccurate and seems intentionally inflammatory.

There were similar conversations on here about Facebook, not permitting nudity - but they certainly permit the DISCUSSION of nudism and naturism.

Remember that these services are free - we are guests on them. As masters and owners of their services, they can impose rules, and disallow what they wish to disallow.

Inflammatory? Well, I'd say that it tries to present "nudists as victims" - a common shtik argument.