SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 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.