Sun, January 23rd, 2005 by Brandon Stone
I've been receiving an increasing number of emails about nudity and sexual content on Photoblogs.org, so it looks like this is a topic that needs to be addressed. Right now there is no official Photoblogs.org policy that tries to dictate content guidelines, so I figured I'd just throw this out and let you share your thoughts.
Should we only allow sites with certain types of content to be listed here?
Should we create some sort of content rating system? If so, how can we make such a system work effectively?
Is this as an important issue that needs to be dealt with immediately?
Update: After reading the comments, I've decided that the answer to the above 3 questions is: no, no, and no. There won't be any content guidelines, there won't be any content rating system, and this isn't a terribly pressing issue that needs to be dealt with immediately. Further, if any particularly "bad" websites show up on Photoblogs.org, then we'll deal with them on a case by case basis.
January 23rd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
The tricky thing, I've experienced, is a designation which is itself not offensive.
(I could actually see people being offended by the content of my political posts, too!) Personally, I like the term "work safe." It says a lot, without suggesting that you, yourself, might consider it offensive.
How to implement? Well, I like the way the process for recommending the deletion of blogs works. But, instead of it being an issue where the visitor is recommenging deletion, they recommend tagging it as "not safe for work." The designation might appear as a bullet in lists where the photoblog appears. (Hosts could of course appeal their designation -- but I think a sticky issue would develop over some kind of threshold for work safe: if 20% aren't work safe, does that merit the designation?)
A sticky issue, truly.
But I'll be honest with you, what bugs me even more is stale content. If I visit a blog and it hasn't had anything added in the last 3 - 6 months (or more), I'm wishing there were a deletion category for stale content. UGH!
January 23rd, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Oh goodness - can of worms time...
Everyone has different ideas as to what is acceptable - or otherwise. Devising any sort of rating system that will keep a majority of people happy is going to be very difficult. Especially difficult given the constantly updated, ever-changing content of photoblogs.
The only way to deal with this would be a simple disclaimer pointing out that photoblogs.org is not responsible for the content of external sites, and that people access them at their own risk. You might also want to reserve the right to remove links to sites that compromise any laws applying within the jurisdiction in which photoblogs.org operates.
January 23rd, 2005 at 2:58 pm
I don't want to comment too much on the nudity thing, this is your site and you get to set rules that you (1) can live with (2) can enforce logically and (3) won't turn the whole thing into a flame war.
I have often encountered rating shenanigans during my "photoblogging career" most notably on BlogExplosion and PhotoBlink. The biggest problem is these is that for different people, the perception of a perfect "10" is very different, some use it as a tool while others are afraid to offend. In fact, even if many sites use a 10 points scale, the most commonly encountered scores are usually 8, 9, 10...and 1.
Furthermore, photoblogs, and the inspiration of their authors, are constantly changing. If I respond to bad ratings by improving my template and my image, I don't want those bad scores to hold me down "forever".
I would thus like to make a few suggestions:
1- Ratings should be temporary using only scores from the last couple of months.
2- Use the median to rank the sites instead of the average. This will greatly reduce the effects of statistical outliers that are commonly encountered in cases of drive-by scoring. For example, if a site has scores of 10, 10, 9, and 1, its average score will be 7.25 while its median score will be 9. The latter is much more indicative of what people seem to be thinking.
3- Perhaps scores could be normalized by the average (or median) scores given by the person doing the judging. There is a difference between somebody who rarely gives out high scores and one who only rank the sites that he/she likes and then again only gives out a 10. We have favorites for the latter case. By normalizing scores, you are sure to use the entire 10 point spread, users will be more tempted to rank more sites (so that their 10s count for more) and you will (hopefully) create a distinction between the ranks and the favorites.
4- While favorites are public, ratings should be anonymous. As long as (2) and (3) are implemented, extreme voting should not have too much of an effect but you need anonymity to prevent retaliatory scores.
In conclusion, scoring can be a valuable tool...as long at it is implemented properly and with consideration for the inevitable failings of human nature.
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Andre, I apologize... I don't think I used the right wording in the original post. I was actually talking more along the lines of content ratings like this:
http://www.icra.org/label/generator/
I'm not really interested in creating a 1-10 scale for us to score photoblogs. I think the whole favorites/voting thing handles that enough. I do agree that scoring is very prone to shenanigans.
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Oh! You might as well remove my comment then
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Maybe there just needs to be a warning system...ask people when they join if its got sexual content..if it does put a red dot next to it on the photoblogs listings.. (for example)
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I like the worksafe idea. Hard to judge what some people may find offensive or art. Is a black and white image of a womans breast art or offensive? Only the viewer can judge that - but the concept of worksafe is an indication of what one 'might' find at the site. Especially if one happes to visit photoblogs at work and certainly was not expecting to have such an item pop up on the screen. Perhaps a self moderated part of registering ones blog - a button that indicates if the site is work-safe or not.
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
i agree with the suggestion of putting up a general disclaimer at photoblogs.org if brandon feels it is necessary or has cause to worry about being liable. it should be up to each site owner to decided whether or not to include a 'rating' system or warning on their individual sites. however, brandon should reserve the right to remove any site if he feels it is too offensive.
many sites have one or two nudes, so should they be 'marked' as sexual? i don't believe so as i am an adult and expect to encounter a nude now and then on photography sites. it would be hard to 'classify' every site out there.
January 23rd, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Could someone point me in the direction of the nudity please - I seem to have missed it all.......
January 23rd, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Tintil, try
http://www.photoblogs.org/search/?keyword=nude
January 23rd, 2005 at 5:15 pm
I think if you're going to try something on the per-photoblog level it should be voluntary at first, such as an NSFW label or something similar.
The main problem, already mentioned, is that if a site has 1500 pictures of landscapes and one random picture of a breast somewhere in the archives, can it really be labelled offensive?
If it were me, I'd just put up a general disclaimer. If people are offended, they shouldn't be emailing you, they should be emailing the owner of the offending site. If you accidently stumble across something offensive while doing an unrelated search on Google, do you complain to Google? If you find a book at a bookstore that offends you, do you complain to the phonebook company that had the listing for the store?
January 23rd, 2005 at 5:27 pm
I think marking, tagging, or labeling sites in any way could be a bad road to go down. Think about the headaches and injustices that could occur. I like to think of photoblogs.org as an online museum of art. How do museums decide what to display? Certainly nude photography is fine, but when does it become pornography? Tough question, but a committee headed up by Brandon (or Brandon himself—I’ve always liked the philosopher king model) could make a list of objectionable material (e.g., a site that simply links nude photos to adult pay sites). Then as people stumble upon them they can report them to that committee for review. If the site commits any infractions on the list, they get removed. If it is borderline, the committee puts it up for discussion. That all gets complicated, too.
Another idea is having a membership requirement in order to be listed. I think most people who are just looking for adult pay site type hits would not take the time to submit a membership application and/or pay any type of fee to join.
This is a tough one. I actually think things are okay as they are. Those sites don't seem to make it into any of the popular lists, so they probably just exist without much attention.
January 23rd, 2005 at 5:29 pm
I would agree entirely with the disclaimer method of resolving this - why void certain sites from publishing themselves upon a directory of photoblogs when a blog is entirely a sense of self expression itself? Some nude photographs may be someone's form of expression (although I have yet to see anything that has offended me the least bit on photoblogs.org; even the nudes I've seen have been kept rather 'tasteful') At least with a disclaimer the person that may be offended by certain material will know whether or not to click on that link.
January 23rd, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Justin has an excellent point - in particular the part about complaining the Brandon....
January 23rd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
I notice that some of the "blogs" are really just gateways to adult pay sites. I don't think it would be too difficult to implement some sort of rule that would dissallow anyone using photoblogs to redirect traffic to their adult site.
As for nude photography, well, this is different from pornography. Nudity has found it's way into art as far back as art goes, and what a shame it would be to censor nudity. The human figure is a beautiful thing.
I think some kind of distinction needs to be made, which I know is very difficult, between photographs of nudes and pornography. I'm not sure how anyone could make this distinction for anyone else, really, as it seems to be a bit subjective, but this is your site and perhaps you should make these decisions based on your own instincts. I know this could be a bad road to go down and I really don't like the idea of censorship, in general, but I get the feeling that you would be pretty liberal in this regard. Otherwise, you wouldn't take the time to have this discussion with all of us in the first place.
January 23rd, 2005 at 7:57 pm
I think the answer is fairly self evident.
It is not the duty of photoblogs.org, microsoft, you or I to decide what is appropriate or not on the internet. Why should it fall on this site's (or anyone's) shoulder what we can and cannot see.
A decision must be made whether this is a family-friendly site, or another anarchic corner of the internet. Take it or leave it.
Parents.. YOU decide what your kids can and can't see. Its not my/our job to do it for you. No really.. you can do this.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:34 pm
At most, you might put a general disclaimer on the FAQ or About page. You really shouldn't look at this as your problem, Brandon. Justin's phonebook comment is dead on right. I just posted my 400th photo yesterday. Of all those, 2 or 3 contain nudity. I don't want a red dot by my listing because it would mischaracterize my site. People either would choose not to visit, fearing it may be full of smut, or they would click my link because of the red dot (hoping for smut) and be disappointed. I don't want that expectation created in the first place.
Another unintended result would be people going to the top 100 list and only checking out the "red dot" sites because they don't have time to look at everything and "these MUST be interesting." You'd be providing a discernment criteria that has nothing to do with what makes for good photography, and that would undermine the whole point of your enterprise.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Well, since this isn't a public/governement site, I think that photoblogs.org should be able to use their own judgement to make these decisions. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to apply some sort of scrutiny when deciding what goes into the index.
I don't think that there's a hard fast rule here. If they choose to allow pornographic stuff in the index, then so be it. Then, it's not a site for kids. But, if they don't like that sort of thing and find it distasteful, then that's okay, too. I don't see what the big deal is. Is it the duty of photoblogs.org to archive everything that is submitted for us to look at? I don't see that photoblogs.org HAS to do anything. It's a private site.
Of course, I appreciate that our opinions are being taken into consideration, but I don't see the point in telling them that they have to do this or that. It seems to go against the whole idea of allowing free thought.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:44 pm
this sounds like it could be a very bad thing. a general warning about external sites would make sense, but tagging certain sites doesn't really seem to be needed. in all the sites i've gone to via photoblogs.org, i can't recall seeing that much nudity at all. maybe a shot here or there, but not many sites devoted to nudity or hardcore sexual themes. and the one site i can think of that does have quite a bit of nudity has a warning on their splash page about it. so you have the choice to enter or not. it shouldn't be up to photoblogs.org to warn you about what may or may not be offensive to certain people.
just my 2 cents, but of course it's up to brandon as to what he wants to do. it's his site after all.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:46 pm
P.S. I agree with Joe (just read his post). I don't think it is your problem, Brandon, however, you should shape the site how you want. Also, I agree that the red dot idea may affect the rating system. That's a good point.
January 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Should we only allow sites with certain types of content to be listed here? Should we create some sort of content rating system? If so, how can we make such a system work effectively? Is this as an important issue that needs to be dealt with immediately?
No, no, and no.
Photography is art, and art, like life, is sometimes offensive. If you don't like it, turn off the computer, throw out your television, cancel your magazine subscriptions, and roll up in a little ball until it's all over.
January 24th, 2005 at 1:16 am
i bet that the complainers represent a very, very tiny fraction of photoblogs.org viewers.
i absolutely detest requests for worksafe warnings. if you're at work, the safe thing to do is work, and not look at websites that do not pertain to your work, end of story.
January 24th, 2005 at 1:51 am
I don't post nudes on my photoblog. Actually, let me re-phrase that. I have yet to take a nude worth posting. When, or if I do, I would rather not have to label my entire site 'work friendly' or 'tagged' for the sake of one image. 'Offensive' nudity seems so subjective that I would really love to take the time to discuss tons of possible solutions so that no group of photographers (which is why we are here in the first place) will be singled out for 'offensive' material.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it."
My $0.02.
January 24th, 2005 at 4:13 am
Why don't you label sites that contain flower macros, pets and boring landscapes ? I find them more offensive than the nudity ones (I'm not talking about the gateway sites), they treat me like I'm dumb. I'm sick of people wanting to remove any kind of message in photography, cinema, music or any art.
January 24th, 2005 at 4:41 am
I am one of those who has recieved complaints. I am not including the URL so as not to be seen as advertising here but I will if Brandon would like me too. I have a blog which features nothing but nudes. I have absololutely no desire to "inflict" my taste on anyone and I fully respect that since Brandon built this site he is king.
However, when viewing my visitor stats I can see the search terms people used in photoblogs to find me and how many pages the clicked. Sex, nude, naked are at the top and of those people over 90% viewed 3 or more pages - around 30% viewed 15 or more. I would say that what I present may not be what every user of photobolgs wants to see but there is certainly a sizable minority who does.
In a general sense I will always argue my and anyone else's right to present whatever I want and expect the viewer to make his/her own choices of what is attractive, offinsive, provocative, pornographic, etc. But as I said, in any individual case of museum, book, website - she/he who pays the bills and does the work earns the right to make absolute choice.
My 23 cents
January 24th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Why should Brandon have to worry about this at all? People really should start taking responsibility for the logical consequences of their own actions. If you are going to browse photoblogs from the photoblogs.org list then you know you are going to be viewing blogs with photographic content, Photographic content can encompass all that a camera's lens can capture, from fluffy kittens and flowers to nudes to images that are far more disturbing. It's not rocket science.
Note to anyone who can't understand this and has been bothering Brandon with these idiotic matters -
If you don't like what you see, close your browser window - don't complain to Brandon! (While youre at it, take a reality check and get a life rather than trying to impose your own very subjective moral values on everyone else!)
:-|>
January 24th, 2005 at 7:48 am
~Brandon, a disclaimer is all that is needed IMO, anything else would simply create one muddy mess...~
January 24th, 2005 at 8:20 am
I agree with mrflat. What's more, why don't we start behaving like we're in the 21st Century and skip this Victorian times prudishness about nudity? I think that's about time.
January 24th, 2005 at 9:28 am
"Should we only allow sites with certain types of content to be listed here?"
No!
"Should we create some sort of content rating system? "
No!
"Is this as an important issue that needs to be dealt with immediately?"
No!
"Whenever I look at the other animals and realize that whatever they do is blameless and they can't do wrong, I envy them the dignity of their estate, its purity and its loftiness, and recognise that the Moral Sense is a thoroughly disastrous thing." -- Mark Twain
January 24th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I think its a bad idea to censor any true photo based website that joins photoblogs.org. This isnt a govt site that needs to uphold the standards of the FCC. Were living in the shadow of janet jacksons boob on television and in radio, we dont need to start applying those conservative commandments to the internet, and more so to a private website that only lists links to other websites.
I think the only sites that should be removed are sites that links directly to a pay adult websites. Those are for profit adult websites that are only here to lure people to spend their money. Which isnt a bad thing, but not what this website was intended for. I dont think a guy or girls website should be censored or even 'red-dotted' as someone suggested, just because they have photos of nudity or sex. I personally may (but probably not) be offended by it and many others may also be offended by it, but I feel better knowing that I had the choice of not going back to a site I was offeneded by then to have never made that decision for myself.
January 24th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Is it possible to allow each logged in user to ignore certain blogs? If you browse to a site that contains material you find offensive, could your profile be changed to not see that site listed any longer? This, of course, would only apply to the odd site that has hate material, or artistic nudity, not to "fake" blogs that forward to for-pay porn sites, which should just be deleted. Of course, this would require some heavy lifting on the development side.
January 24th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Brandon,
We (our board of directors) just spent a considerable amount of time and effort with our attorneys to develop what we feel is a reasonable nudity policy for our Affiliate Members. You are welcome to borrow from it as a starting point. Register on our forum and I will give you the needed upgrades to access that info.
Also, check Diviantart.com, they have an excellent system.
DR
January 24th, 2005 at 11:29 am
My initial post should not be interpreted as any kind of vote in favor of labeling. I was talking about the hypothetical logistics/ramifications of implementation.
January 24th, 2005 at 11:37 am
They could be rated R. or be redirected to a page with the standard disclaimer "there coul be nudity over here... bla bla bla..."
January 24th, 2005 at 11:47 am
There is a growing number of sites listed here that just seem designed to propagate spam or posrnography, but those sites are obviously not photoblogs and should be removed altogether.
Genuine photoblogs with nude content however should be permitted here imho. I don't know if a 'warning' system is the right way to tackle it, as other people have pointed out a site would get such a label if it posts one nude shot amongst 500 landscapes, which isn't really a fair way of stigmatising that site.
January 24th, 2005 at 11:48 am
"Were living in the shadow of janet jacksons boob"
Hah.
January 24th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Question:
Does one need to post only pictures one took him/herself to qualify as a "real photoglog"?
January 24th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Some people have mentioned site wich "forward" you to a paysite. Does this mean to take the user there without there permission or to link to pay sites?
Also - I am curious just how many people have complained - which got this all rolling. In reading through all the above I don't see a single objection and quite a bit of support for not censoring.
January 24th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I think a photoblog is defined by its structure, not by its content.
Something is a photoblog if:
- it has photos
- it's on the web
- it's some kind of log
And that's it.
My personal philosophy is to be more inclusive rather than exclusive with Photoblogs.org. It makes sense that this site should accept any type of photoblog and then help to sort them out so that people can find what they want to find.
Photoblogs.org should never be in the business of dictating content guidelines or otherwise imposing itself on the people it serves.
Sounds like most of you agree with that, too.
Of course, these comments are still open. If anyone would like to share an alternate point of view, go for it.
In the meantime, this has become a good blog post that I can point people to in the future as they have questions about this sort of thing.
January 24th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
I'm glad this is much more of a non-issue than I thought it would be. Yay!
January 24th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Definitely agree, I don't think you should have to think of yourself as a content monitor, you provide access to content but, as long as the sites in the DB are photoblogs, you shouldn't need to be concerned with the content they provide.
January 24th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Isn't it amazing how easy it is to resolve problems when everyone gets to speak and all are treated respectfully. There's hope! Well handled.
January 25th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
A voice of concern. As a basic principle I do not favor censorship. However I do have some questions.
If a blog promotes hatred is that O.K.
If a blog exploits and victimizes individuals is that O.K.
If a blog publishes sexually explicit of minors is that OK.
If a blog is a shell for a commercial enterprise is that O.K.
No answers only questions
January 25th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Very good questions regarding the content of individual blogs per se. This site however is a listing of blogs, photoblogs.
The question here is should the photoblogs.org site monitor and censor or somehow categorize individual photoblogs listed as "family friendly" or "offensive" or what have you. Even if this was logistically possible, which I don't believe it is, is it desirable? For example who sets the moral boundaries, the criteria?
Believe me, as a moderator on a large online graphic artists site for a few years now, these areas are potential minefields and fraught with headaches.
I for one would certainly not suggest any of the above examples you have given were in any way acceptable or appropriate content for what I would want to see in a photoblog, in fact some would be illegal in my countries laws.
It should not be for Brandon or photoblogs.org to vet all sites for this kind of content, however.
If such sites were found in the list, any individual stumbling upon them has within their power (and I would suggest responsibilities) the ability to do something about it, either by voting with your feetand not visiting or complaining to the relevant persons or bodies responsible for putting the site up or hosting it, or by reporting the site to the appropriate authorities (as I would do in the example of publishing content dealing with the sexual exploitation of minors)
January 26th, 2005 at 5:54 am
Can I assume the case is then closed and my site will remain listed?
January 27th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Those are great questions, Bob.
As it stands anyone can ask to have any site removed. If enough people request a site for removal, then it will show up on my radar. At that point I will make the decision whether to take action. If a site lies in a really difficult gray area, then my action may be to open it up to a discussion and we can take it from there.
January 27th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Zorb, my philosophy on this is that we shoud just not worry about it until we have to.
February 20th, 2005 at 5:39 am
In history freedom and art met each other very often. I think the freedom to express yourself while respecting others goes above all.
So nude or even porn shouldn't be a problem as long as the visitor knows what to expect. You're free to leave a site on the internet when you don't like it right?
A simple warning for nude/porn should be MORE than enough, this way people know what they might get to see.
furthermore it's very sensetive to culture, it's really impossible to keep each individual happy. freedom to show or not to show and freedom to look or not to look is the key.
But that's just an individual oppinion.....