Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Flickr Continues to Censor it's Best Photographers: Now it's Malingering

laist.com — Flickr has been exposes this week of censoring Rebekah, Thomas Hawk, and now they have restricted the viewing of Malingering's pics. This is a woman who makes fun of people walking around in bad clothes in public places: LA open market malls, at beaches, etc. Oh and she takes a lot of pictures of her cats. All things "mum" wouldnt approve of?

Bury

vango 1 year 188 days ago, made popular 1 year 188 days ago

1723 diggs
digg it

109 Comments
Who Dugg It?

fname, on 10/11/2007, -17/+10Flickr has now reversed themselves, and malingering's photos are safe again. Show's over guys, thanks for your support.

http://flickr.com/photos/malingering/503984649/
- Raian, on 10/11/2007, -19/+6The show isn't over until I say: SCREW YAHOO! Okay shows over for me-- next.
- EatingPie, on 10/11/2007, -19/+151What a collossal bunch of whiners we have become. Censorship? THIS is what happened to Malingering, in her own words:
  
  "This means that without a Flickr account you cannot see the photos, and even if you have a Flickr account, the thumbnail is all snowy until you decide that you will break the "safe" barrier and click into "unsafe" territory to see what is behind the black pixels."
  
  So you can still see the photos, just that you need to be a registered user, and explicitly click thru the thumblnail... but THAT is censorship?
  
  My problem here is that we toss around the word censorship with such wanton abandon, it starts to lose its real meaning. Consider Malingering's "struggle" against pre-civil war America when people were actually killed for printing anti-slavery literature, or the Nazi book burnings. And this still goes on in other parts of the world... yet we spend our energy on this?... where the pictures remained totally 100% accessible! :-(
  
  -Pie
- mwosh, on 10/11/2007, -6/+152Is it just me, or does it feel like diggers want another thing to revolt about?
- markdr123, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21Pie and mwosh, you are both totally right.
- rarson, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4It's not that I disagree... I would agree that this is not a case of censorship. And often, when it's the company providing the service, even if it IS censorship, they have the right to do whatever they want with THEIR service. In such a case, I would argue that censoring it's users (especially for a pay service like XM) would be shooting themselves in the foot, but that's their decision, and it's the our decision as the customers not to use their service anymore.
  
  But it IS important to quash REAL censorship whenever it rears it's ugly head. I can't blame someone for being overly enthusiastic about that. I'd much rather have a bunch of people screaming about non-existent censorship and have to let them know that they're wrong (thanks, but try again) than have an entire nation of lackadaisical people that don't care enough about our rights to stand up and do something about it.
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -6/+33Thank you pie and mwosh, for having some sense.
  
  If you don't like this, then USE SOMETHING ELSE. It's a damn website, if they do something that really bothers you to that extent, put your photos somewhere else. You are NOT tied to it.
- ryodoan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8The pictures picked out on the linked page are obviously picked to show that SOME of the pictures were censored incorrectly, however if you go to his set of "restricted photos" you notice that most of them were a bit more debatable.
  
  I present exhibit A:
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/82788758/in/set-72157600229433474/
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/79694084/in/set-72157600229433474/
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/82799836/in/set-72157600229433474/
  
  He seems to have a fascination with implants.
  
  The whole restricted stream is here:
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/sets/72157600229433474/?page=8
  
  I see his point when he says that these were taken in a public place, but I also feel he is fishing a little when he states that Flickr had no reason to restrict these pictures.
- gxcdesign, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12None of my photos are censored...oh that's right I host them myself...point being if you rely on someone else to host your pictures just be grateful that they are in the first place
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6You don't have an expectation of privacy in a public place, but voyeurism is illegal, as far as I'm aware. The three photos linked above me are clearly that, in my opinion.
- SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Nope. The Flickr is _hosting_ the photos. Host them yourself if you're afraid of censorship. Plus: if anybody in the photos says that they are displayed in a humiliating manner, Flickr is required to remove those photos.
  
  This really has nothing to do with censorship / freedom of speech.
- realitybias, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4On one hand you are right, it's not real censorship. They are a private company, and can regulate what is on their network however they so choose. However, in this new era of web 2.0 where there are virtual monopolies on things like image hosting, Flickr has got the largest following and therefore has got the largest responsibility to at least keep a general sense of fairness on their website. After all, that was the reason the "revolt" happened on Digg, right? Nobody would argue that Digg didn't have a right to censor the numbers, but many people felt as if it was unfair given the public, open nature of the site.
  
  I think that Flickr did the right thing by reinstating her images.
- l1wulf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28These photos are from "some of Flickr's best photographers"? Uh. Right.
- SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1And on the other hand, sites like Flickr have a reputation to hold on to. Whether photographs of people in poor clothing is insulting or not is a matter of taste, of course. But one should ask: what kind of paper / art exhibit would display such photos. It's weighting on the value of displaying them versus the harm they are causing the people in the pictures.
  
  The professional photographers have strong ethics. Maybe it would be a good thing to get those to the public's consciousness now that anyone can put them into public.
- HonoredMule, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3"THAT'S censorship?"
  
  So lose the word censorship. It's not really needed to describe the stupidity with which Flikr is trampling on its own content providers. If I were ever going to get a Flikr account, that possibility has expired. They couldn't better demonstrate how little they care about even the people who fuel their business model, then by "restricting" content just because they're too lazy to verify the validity of anonymous complaints.
  
  If my boss invoked punitive measures every time some anonymous email or phone call complained about me or my work without even checking the information, I'd be finding a new job immediately...and my job pays cash money.
- c1nn46, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3censor this: this guy is ***** lame, he walks around taking pictures of girls' t&a
  
  please don't let this beautiful artistic expression be censored pffft
- Chongo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1this is exactly like the whole heavy metal explicit content label thing. If anything this is good for both flickr and the artists themselves... Now I want to see which pictures were banned across the board.
- AkshayGenius, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Double yew tee eff
- BGFeltenink, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Censorship by definition is apt to this particular case. It doesn't mean it is anywhere near as grand as government censorship or having jackbooted thugs burn your book collection, but as a word it fits. What other term would you use? When someone prevents the voice of another from being heard (or seen) they have censored that person.
  
  This does not mean it is illegal censorship. It's a ***** business practice given the ideals of freedom held by so many internet users but it is not illegal. I don't think any of the rational people in the debate are really even calling it that. Certainly it is no more illegal than if my local laundromat were to deny customers based on what types of garments they own. It would, however be a ***** business practice and barring some sort of local monopoly on laundromats people would probably take their business elsewhere and let them suffer the financial consequences.
- inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9> Is it just me, or does it feel like diggers want another thing to revolt about?
  
  To some extent, yes, but the real story here is that Flickr was once very open and free and you could post and say just about anything without concern about being moderated based on someone else's whim. When you have that kind of environment, it fosters a real sense of community that is very rare nowadays on the Internet. Frankly, it's a lot of fun. A year or so ago when Flickr sold out to Yahoo, a lot of us expressed concerns that Yahoo's influence would ruin the site--just like it has ruined almost every site it has bought out prior. Flickr's founders were all over the discussions promising that Yahoo wouldn't get its nose too far under the tent.
  
  But, as we're seeing, the Yahooification is starting. This great site that so many people have spent time building up as a great place is gradually being torn down and hammered into some predetermined shape that will make some executive at Yahoo happy (an executive who has probably never even used Flickr.) When you look at it that way, it's less about people wanting something to revolt against, and more about people disliking the whole "piss in the pool" attitude that Yahoo brings to the party.
  
  One of the ways that Yahoo has ruined the sites they've bought out is by introducing too many restrictions and rules. Years and years ago, I watched Webrings disintegrate thanks to Yahoo's interference and rule-happy approach to sites. And with Flickr, that has started too. Last month, Flickr members lost their ability to sign in to Flickr without having a Yahoo account. You also have restrictions on tagging and contacts now. Flickr has apparently stepped up its efforts to stamp out "offensive" images. You have thousands of people having a great time on a site and someone interfering with that. It's not just people looking for something to complain about.
- SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0The correct term would be 'taking out the trash'
- schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2***** Flickr.
- inspecality, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/206279788/
  
  Photo of Malingering. So she takes photos of women hotter than herself, then is a total bitch. What a valuable asset to Flickr.
kylebrothert, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21I'm not sure the show is over. It shouldn't take multiple appeals to make your photos viewable. Their editorial department is apparently trigger happy.

Some photos are obscene. But, short of nudity or graphic violence, potentially offensive photos should be allowed. People don't need to be protected from the real world.
- j4200, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3but all she does is take pictures of others and makes fun of them. yahoo has to cover their ass. they could be held liable for her harassment and defaming of people if they don't do anything. If she wants rights to post anything she wants, she should get her own website. Untill then, she should shut up and put up with the rules sanctioned by flickr.
  
  if you want a pure example of free speech , maddox is all you need
vango, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21im with you kyle

they never said that her pics were obscene, in fact her update to the story is just as interesting

they say they originally banned her pics because of complaints and they felt like the had to do "something"

meaning they looked at the pics, saw nothing that went against their TOS and still banned her because of whiners

i say keep digging especially since fname sounds like a Flickr vip "nothing to see here, move along"
- LethalAmbition, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8"meaning they looked at the pics, saw nothing that went against their TOS and still banned her because of whiners"
  
  Or better yet, they didn't look at the pics and banned her, hoping the complaints were legitimate.
  Well done Flickr. Well done.
bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Is the phrase "protecting our intellectual property" just a fancy way of saying the word censorship?
kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Yahoo can F up anything - they are good that way.
- endustry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yahoo!: "Hmmmmm, AOL has disintegrated leaving millions upon millions of grandmas, luddites, technophobes and internet noobies without a brand to trust on the dangerous, dangerous information superhighway. Seeing how Google has pretty much mopped the floor with us, maybe we can earn a quick buck being the WalMart of the Web. Yeah, okay."
ScottY07, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6I reckon they have been censored or restricted because by the looks of it she has taken pictures of people without them realising.
- carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+29they were in public places, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
- spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@Scotty07 (#6767179)
  Don't know how it is in the USA, but under UK law Flickr would have another legal issue to worry about, if any of the people in the photos take issue with what was said about them, and decide to sue Malingering for libel, Flickr would also be liable if they didn't remove the photos/comments when asked to by the person suing.
- atbnet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Do you know how hard it is to prove libel let alone actually win a case? If it were so easy, none of the celeb gossip magazines would be in business.
- raindogmx, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1"they were in public places, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place."
  
  ...until it happens to your kids
KineticShampoo, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3Buried for using the word: "mum".
- jono10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree. People outside the US have no right to be on da Intawab. It's MOM. (how did they get mom from mum, it's not that difficult is it. These people are the leaders of the free, cough, world, cough cough wheeze gasp)
CoachZed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44If this is one of Flickr's "best" photographers, I'm afraid to see who their worst are.
bovox, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33I checked out those pictures and they're a bit ... creepy. They really don't have any socially-redeeming value and exist solely in mean-spirited manner. If this woman insists on discourteously making fun of people and posting their pictures on the internet without their permission, then at the very least she should anonymize the photos by photoshopping small black rectangles over their eyes.

This woman is a photojournalist hack.
- Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Are you serious? They aren't laughing at people. Most of the pics Ive seen are either of herself, her kids or her environment. You just sound like a troll who would pay everything out because your one of those "im going to hate everything", cool nerds. Im about 1/2 way through her collection and I can say that she does have talent. Im not big on photography either, but I really like her work.
  
  Oh, and by the way. If you actually bothered to read some of the captions that accompany the portraits of people that your referring to, you would know that most, if not all of the subjects gave permission and allowed her to take multiple photo's.
  
  Besides, the issue here isnt whether she has talent or not. The real issue is the fact that Flickr restricted her account without doing a proper review of her material.
- Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Additionally, she is not a "a photojournalist hack" - She's not a journalist in any way shape or form. From her own site, Ive managed to work out that she is a visual arts student and does freelance photography as a hobby. That is not photojournalism.
- Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6OH SNAP! I just shot myself in the foot, and blew most of my leg off in the process!!!! Apologies for the previous 2 comments!
  I clicked a link on the article, and I assumed that it was linking me to the Flickr account in question - Turns out that belonged to the original Flickr censorship scandal (Rebekah). It was this photographer that I was sticking up for!
  
  After checking out the ACTUAL Flickr account that this article is based on, I have to agree with bovox's comments and say that these photos are just plain weird!!
Pic0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"Flickr has apologized.

Hello Malingering,

First off, we're very sorry!

I've gone through and remoderated your photostream as safe
(except for those that you've moderated yourself).

We owe you an explanation. It seems that your photostream
attracts quite a bit of attention from the community, and
when this happens you turn up for review by staff again and
again. I'm afraid when this happens, we start feeling
compelled to "do something". In your case, it was clearly
the wrong thing. "

the pictures on that page are total *****, besides the cat picture and that is alright
joe90210, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22are we gonna have a front page story every time some nobody photographer get;s their crappy pics removed from flickr?
- dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9If you describe it using the word "censorship" and other scary words, probably..
bouche, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5yeah and everything I saw claimed in the article was false. It challenged me to view a photo that flickr allegedly censored and it came up fine. that ***** article can bit my ass.
bouche, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I also realize after checking out some _rebekka's photos. She's hot, so automatically she gets street cred with the nerd who wrote the article.
monergism, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Call the Wambulance.
ModOps, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Flickr isn't the government. When Flickr decides of it's own accord that it doesn't want certain pictures on their service, that's up to them. It's not censorship. Photographers who have their pictures removed from Flickr can put them up somewhere else.

Buried for not being a censorship issue.
- btbridges, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0i'm digging you down for being rational. sorry.
GonadHunter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Best photographers? Some woman with an expensive camera who takes pictures of her cats and badly dressed people and comes up with ever so mature titles is now one of the best?
- hotsake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0No kidding. There's a big difference between photography and taking pictures, namely the association with artistic merit.
- drgmdp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0most assholes believe that having a dslr camera makes you a pro.
  specially dslr owners.
mapkinase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5It was a mistake and they apologized.
Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Yahoo is the AOL of the 21st century. May they spiral into insignificance just as AOL did!!
Ninnux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Being careful is not censorship, it's being smart.
sion2119, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13First off, this photographer is a jerk to begin with....so the hell with him/her.
michael.calfee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I never thought Flickr of all things would get on the digg burn list. It's like the Salem witch trials around here.
newstart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Flickr is doing the right thing. Imagine any one of us ending on that ladies flickr page who takes pics of badly dressed people. Who is she to judge us anyway! Ban her atleast flickr!
Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0If people don't like the pictures, don't look at them.
drmsucks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Of course it's censorship - even worse, stupid, mindless censorship.

"We owe you an explanation. It seems that your photostream
attracts quite a bit of attention from the community, and
when this happens you turn up for review by staff again and
again. I'm afraid when this happens, we start feeling
compelled to "do something". In your case, it was clearly
the wrong thing."

Their ridiculous explanation speaks for itself - unspecified whining results in Flickr "feeling compelled to do something" - so they block access to the photos EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. Mindless morality perpetrated by morons.
Wilddigi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Censorship and this NSFW garbage is ruining this country. If something offends a person, don't ***** look at it.
Anteros, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Fuss over nothing really it was a mistake by flickr, not really suprising when the site has half a billion photos.
dasunst3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This is why I have my own Gallery2 installation. It costs a bit more than a Flickr membership and gives you a boofload more control than Flickr ever will.
alansky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I totally agree that Flickr should not censor these photos. They may be tasteless and stupid, but censorship is much worse than tastelessness and stupidity.
frostcrow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
It isn't the kind of Censorship anyone really gives a rats ass about. When the government wants text books edited to their liking or information removed /added for their agenda, we might give two *****. When a nut group wants books burned to prevent people from reading the information in them, we might give two *****. When the goverment or society tells us we can not discuss this or that then we might give two *****. When our lives or freedom are in danger of being taken if we speak out against this or for that, then we might give two *****.

When "flicker" is making people click thumbnails to see your stupid pictures... find yourself a new host if you don't like it, STFU and GBTW you whiney, spoiled, attention whore.
mlvassallo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't get it. The let you host your images on their servers, and you bitch when they put some restrictions on it?

Pony up the cash for your own webspace and put your ***** there.
Seefate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Seriously would you expect any different from Yahoo?
davideparker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Flickr Continues to Censor it's Best Photographers: Now it's Malingering"

Spelling!!
ScottoGato, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Why do people feel that they have to use Flickr. ***** Flickr. Find a different site.
Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Yeah, but you whine and act like children when you can't post that stupid HD-DVD code on the internet
ddn3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think that image of the pier was censored because its incredibly overexposed. --stop
waterboy1628, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Google buys Youtube and tons more videos are censored. Yahoo buys Flickr, and wow, more photos are censored.
Coincidence?
mbthompson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Marked as inaccurate. She has already gotten her photos back up on Flickr and they have apologized. RTFA
Morelia, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0The Bush administration is putting a lot pf pressure on Internet companies now that all are subject to easy wiretap of activity. The Bush administration's goal is to limit as much personal freedom as they can before leaving office. Once Republicans have access to all objectors they can start to whittle them away one by one, and also refresh the culture for a more pure religious community.

If we don't scrub religious control and manipulation out of all corners of secular life, we will be living in an Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan one day not too far away. It all has to start somewhere!
TechCF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Funny this beeing dugg up on digg just after I signed up as a translator for Zooomr :P
GhostWithToast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As is usually the case, they apologized and reinstated the correct status. When millions of people use a service, there's bound to be a mistake here and there. Of course, getting digged might help ;-)
TheLD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why are people whining about what appears to be a genuine mistake?

People aren't happy unless there is trouble about, are they?
x00x, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2David Letterman and CBS provide an excellent rationale for what Flickr has been forced to do in an effort to limit any liability the posting of unflattering images of this kind might bring against the company.

What Flickr has done is quite understandable and is simply a matter of protecting itself from the same sort of liability suffered by CBS when forced to come up with a considerable amount of money to settle a case by someone who felt ridiculed in a David Letterman comedy bit a few years back.

The regularly appearing comedy bit which featured silly multiple choice questions juxtaposed alongside people filmed randomly and unknowingly was quite funny but occasionally rude and insulting many of which venturing an area that made CBS' vulnerable to enormous liability as a result.

The case several years ago involved a spectator, an older woman with a dowdy, matronly look, attending the annual tennis tournament held in Queens, NY as the merciless butt of Letterman's incessant ridicule, .the camera focusing on her in the crowd voraciously chomping on a peach in as unflattering manner imaginable, repeatedly shown again and again throughout the sketch. The story of the woman's lawsuit and CBS out of court settlement making news at the time. The comedy
routine a staple of the David Letterman show hasn't been seen lately.
lex10, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2flickr blows
drgmdp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0and where's thomas hawk whining about flickr censorship and how much greater the site he manages is?
lopla, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This is getting RETARDED. Flickr is a private site. When you sign up you agree to use the site on THEIR terms, if you are too f'ing stupid to understand this then please F-OFF!
wellyuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Best photographers"? Wow.. the standard of flickr photography sucks if these are the best.
MrViklund, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Inaccurate.
jedinate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've been a member of Flickr for 2 years and have never had a problem with them. If I did I would leave. This photographer is FAR from one of the best on Flickr and if he doesn't want to be "censored" he should post elsewhere. I will say as I always do in these types of situations, to all those that bitch ... "No one is forcing you to post on Flickr if you don't like there rules leave."

I can name about 1000 other places to post pictures on the internet, Flickr is not your only option.
mykos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Malingering is a creepy person, taking pictures of random women's and girls' asses and posting them on the internet. I hope my daughters/sisters/moms never get within range of that camera.
thekronz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you think that girl in the pink is single?
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Flickr Continues to Censor it's Best Photographers: Now it's Malingering

Login or register to add a comment