from the is-a-cherub-also-child-pornography? dept.
Google has announced their new Adult Content Policy for Blogger...
Starting March 23, 2015, you won't be able to publicly share images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity on Blogger.
Note: We’ll still allow nudity if the content offers a substantial public benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts.
Changes you’ll see to your existing blogs:
If your existing blog doesn’t have any sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video on it, you won’t notice any changes.
If your existing blog does have sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video, your blog will be made private after March 23, 2015. No content will be deleted, but private content can only be seen by the owner or admins of the blog and the people who the owner has shared the blog with.
They also explain how a blog can be exported, presumably for use should you wish to change hosts.
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6170671?p=policy_update&hl=en&rd=1
Unfortunately, one man's art is another man's porn - so if you run a photography blog or just have images taken on the beach during your holidays you might want to back-up your data or recheck its contents.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:06PM
Boy, that sure is a policy that helps anyone at all.
Did you guys know sex is icky, and you shouldn't blog about it. Eeeeewwwww.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:13PM
Move the tits to tumblr.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:18PM
Well, sure. That's pretty clearly their goal. Get people to go elsewhere with those blogs.
But the questionable element is why. Why has Google decided that certain things are unfit for people to talk about on their blogs?
In general, I'm not a misunderstanding-free-speech-then-chastising-platforms-for-limiting-it zealot, but nominally, blogger is a platform and technology, and Google assumes no editorial oversight over anything else. I feel they have an obligation to justify their changes.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:25PM
Google is about to charge for Pr0n - it is in the 5-year plan, and the first stage is banning/blocking/filtering the freebies.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:26PM
Wraith Babes! 15 Million Merits!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:33PM
The problem with google taking over pr0n isn't the product itself, or even the name of the product which will probably have the oo in google replaced with a nice pair of (or maybe two goatse who knows)
The problem with google is it'll take over the biz, push all the competition out, then "pull a reader" three years later discontinuing it, and then generations of teen boys will have to grow up with no idea what the fun parts look like.
(Score: 5, Funny) by fadrian on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:00PM
The problem with google is it'll take over the biz, push all the competition out, then "pull a reader" three years later discontinuing it, and then generations of teen boys will have to grow up with no idea what the fun parts look like.
It doesn't matter in the long run... porn routes around damage.
That is all.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:16AM
Oh, they will find out all right what the fun parts look like, and it won't be in a virtual system, either!
The parents of teenage girls will soon be doing whatever it takes to get the distractors back online.
How many gallons per minute of human sperm does the porn industry divert from its "natural" course, anyway? Anyone hazard a guess?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:57PM
The problem with google is it'll take over the biz, push all the competition out, then "pull a reader" three years later discontinuing it, and then generations of teen boys will have to grow up with no idea what the fun parts look like.
They'll have to start over again with ANSI & ASCII porn.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:03PM
I suspect they did it to just automate the detection of certain things like child porn, revenge port, etc, without having to have even marginally sophisticated image filters. Probably getting too many take down demands to handle. Easier to just have their skin detectors running at ban everything mode.
Any thing that makes them need to spend human resources checking out complaints is ripe for the chopping block. Too many non-paying customers and too few employees.
With today's litigious society, even assigning an employee to undertake the task of checking out complaints can get you sued for workplace sexual harassment/misconduct.
And who knows what country will impose multi-billion dollar fines, or what extreme sect will start taking hostages, for violating their local version of religiously forbidden topics.
I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, trying to cow tau to every censorship demand from every corner of the world.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:31PM
2015, the year bare human skin was made illegal. Truly, such a Brave New World. (Although ironically, in the novel, sex is used to appease the citizenry as entertainment.)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:24AM
I'll take "What is Google being Wall Street's bitch" for $400 Alex? Wall street has never liked "unsavory" businesses or anything sexual and since the IPO Google has cared more about the stock price than their actual users by a country mile.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:21PM
They said they allowed the material before because they wanted to respect freedom of expression. Well, I guess by their own admission, they no longer respect freedom of expression.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:54PM
They still abide by "Do No Evil". They just define evil.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:58PM
Nah, that's not evil. Evil would be inserting goatse frames into your videos. Maybe replacing a picture if you've been staring at for more than 30 seconds and the cursor hasn't moved. Replacing it with tubgirl. That's evil!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:13PM
Well, I guess by their own admission, they no longer respect freedom of expression.
Or courts all over the world have imposed their own definition of freedom of expression.
Or extremists all over the world that who ever holds tha AK-47 gets to define acceptable freedom of religion.
All the google haters rejoice when google gets fined in some country somewhere for some local policy violations, and start chanting that "Google must follow the laws of every place their servers are reachable". (While simultaneously singing the praises of TOR).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:21PM
Or courts all over the world have imposed their own definition of freedom of expression.
Or extremists all over the world that who ever holds tha AK-47 gets to define acceptable freedom of religion.
All of that is indeed bad. But it is funny how they basically directly state that they no longer care about freedom of expression.
All the google haters rejoice when google gets fined in some country somewhere for some local policy violations, and start chanting that "Google must follow the laws of every place their servers are reachable". (While simultaneously singing the praises of TOR).
Uh... I'm pretty sure "google haters" aren't a huge hivemind that all believe the same thing. Morality != law. Google (as well as Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and so many others) is a scummy corporation for many reasons, and this is just one more reason. TOR is good for protecting privacy. I don't know how large this group you're talking about is, or if it's a mere straw man, but it doesn't matter; such hasty generalizations are foolish.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:37PM
Hasty generalizations seem to be something you reserve for yourself, and deny to others.
directly state that they no longer care about freedom of expression.
Please post a link to Google's direct statement that "they no longer care about freedom of expression".
Or was that a hasty generalization.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25 2015, @11:29PM
Hasty generalizations seem to be something you reserve for yourself, and deny to others.
I did no such thing.
Please post a link to Google's direct statement that "they no longer care about freedom of expression".
Or was that a hasty generalization.
They state that allowing such content is part of freedom of expression, and that's why they allowed it before. Suddenly rejecting it means they rejected they are no longer committed to freedom of expression by their previous standards. There is nothing difficult to understand about this, and there were no hasty generalizations.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:46AM
They state that allowing such content is part of freedom of expression, and that's why they allowed it before. Suddenly rejecting it means they rejected they are no longer committed to freedom of expression by their previous standards.
It means no such thing.
At best it means changing laws and court rulings and take down orders have made it impossible to allow content they used to be able host. Or the flurry of take down orders costs them way more in time and effort than they can possibly recoop. At worst it means that governments or radicals have issued threats against them for allowing it.
Just how many Google Executives have to sit in jail to enable you to post your porn for free on their site?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:20AM
Um, all of them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:58AM
It means no such thing.
Sure it does. They allowed it before because they claimed they were committed to freedom of expression. Now they're getting rid of it, so by their previous standards, they aren't committed to freedom of expression. Government threats don't matter to whether or not they are committed to freedom of expression, but it is at least more understandable if they are under attack. And I don't see any indication of threats being the reason.
Just how many Google Executives have to sit in jail to enable you to post your porn for free on their site?
That makes no sense.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:49PM
It means no such thing.
Sure it does. They allowed it before because they claimed they were committed to freedom of expression.
They allowed it before because they weren't being dragged into court, getting take down notices, violating local state federal and foreign laws and having to settle law suits out of court for millions.
Laws have changed. Revenge porn laws are springing up all over. Major site hacks (iCloud) are sending a flood of stolen photos online into blogs.
The never were committed to freedom of expression at the risk of losing their own freedom.
STOP: Go back and re-read the last sentence.
It was always predicated on it being legal expression. But its not legal anymore in many jurisdictions.
That much should be patently obvious.
Once something is illegal Google has to stop it. If they didn't, You yourself would be here demanding they follow the law or be thrown in jail.
[I find it patently absurd that an AC is taking Google to task for failing to shell out millions and risk jail time to protect illegal activities of others. Way to stand behind your assertions AC. Way to set an example.]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:48AM
All the google haters rejoice when google gets fined in some country somewhere for some local policy violations, and start chanting that "Google must follow the laws of every place their servers are reachable".
Apples and oranges. Using Tor is the domain of private citizens and their decision to disobey/oppose their local government, which is their natural right by virtue of being the basic pillar of political power.
On the other hand, there is a very good case to be made for the separation of financial interest and political influence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:14PM
Does blogger have a way to install a permanent redirect?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:25PM
How bout text?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:29PM
argh I clicked submit too early. Anyway I wonder if this would be overly obscene:
Posting on Blogger, I decided to show the world my dangling participle.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday February 25 2015, @09:49PM
ahh that's what you mean... after your premature initial post I was thinking ASCII art porn...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:01PM
ASCII art goatse -> O
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:20PM
Err... [github.com] (pretty explicit, don't go there if you know yourself sensible).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 5, Insightful) by morgauxo on Wednesday February 25 2015, @10:05PM
It probably makes it easier for them to grow in various foreign markets given different laws about such things. Just ban it all and they are good to go.
(Score: 4, Funny) by goody on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:23AM
So Google actually cares about Blogger now? I left there four or so years ago when it was painfully obvious it was the red-headed stepchild of Google services and it was getting long in the tooth.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:20AM
I am not a fan of pornography in any form for many reasons (I used to be but that will open up a story the size of War and Peace so let's not go there) but if there is one thing I have learned about the Internet it's this: The Internet is for Porn" [youtube.com]. An Internet-connected tablet computer is the greatest pornography delivery system ever developed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Funny) by mendax on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:23AM
I should have also said that the Internet is for cat videos, but then that's just another kind of pussy.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday February 26 2015, @04:31AM
There's little need to develop social skills if you can get your satisfaction online.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:35PM
Are you saying it's wrong to satisfy sexual desire/release without an involved negotiation process (potentially costing thousands of dollars in gifts) with another party?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:47PM
If it's costing you thousands of dollars in credits, you're doing it wrong.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]