Flickr's Weird Doublespeak.

[Mos6502]

For those of you who still use flickr, have you noticed the bizarre wording in their latest announcement? Basically, flickr has decided it's finally time to start deleting all those photos they threatened to delete back in 2018. They've issued an announcement here: https://blog.flickr.net/en/2022/03/...&utm_medium=blue-banner&utm_content=text-link

They pat themselves on the back for not deleting photos, but if you read carefully, they state their intent is to delete a ton of photos. However, what's truly bizarre about this announcement is the amusing way they write about this intent:

Photographers have long faced bans and deletion from nearly every online photography community for creating or sharing the “wrong” type of art. We’re rolling out changes to Flickr that welcome all photographers to discover, share, and interact with photography, period.

Followed a paragraph or so later by:

To support these creators, and ensure that their communities continue to thrive, the ability to share restricted and moderate content will be reserved for Flickr Pro members.

So for the freedom of creators of certain types of content, those creators, of those specific types of content will now have to pay flickr - in contrast to creators who make other types of content. Kind of an odd freedom, if you ask me. 🙄

This doesn't affect me directly, since I don't post any moderate or restricted content. But it feels "off" and once again I have thoughts that maybe flickr is circling the drain.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Many websites have started locally storing linked images as attachments. Meaning- link a photo from Flickr, a local copy is made but clicking on the image in the post directs you to the original on Flickr. If the photo on Flickr has been deleted, that link comes up as dead.

I deleted thousands of images when they did their bait-and-switch a couple of years ago.

 

[Brian Legge]

Combining the messaging is a bit awkward but I don’t think it’s doublespeak.

- If you aren’t paying, we’ll start deleting content based on guidelines they had around for ages.
- If you aren’t paying, you can’t use Flickr to host moderated images for viewing on other pages.
- If you do pay, you can use Flickr to host moderated images for viewing on other pages.

 

[Doug A]

As I read the message, as a non-payer I can not post more than 50 non-public images and I can not post any restricted or moderate images. I do not see any reference to moderated images or to images linked to other web sites.

 

[Brian Legge]

Heh, thanks for calling out the misspelling. I was going to say ‘adult’ but edited at the last minute in an attempt at marching their terminology. Oops.

 

[Mos6502]

Combining the messaging is a bit awkward but I don’t think it’s doublespeak.

- If you aren’t paying, we’ll start deleting content based on guidelines they had around for ages.
- If you aren’t paying, you can’t use Flickr to host moderated images for viewing on other pages.
- If you do pay, you can use Flickr to host moderated images for viewing on other pages.

The problem is, a lot of people haven't been on the site in years. Their content is going to be deleted as a matter of course, probably without them even knowing about it. It seems an arbitrary rule to create, and given they're struggling to pull in more users, adding more restrictions seems like a good idea to shut more prospective users out. More than that though, I'm just amused by the "we want to create a site for ALL content, so we're going to start deleting content" message. Very sincere of them.😛

 

[boojum]

My bet is that some guy from Marketing came up with a "great new idea" and got a promotion with it. With storage space getting cheaper this is just a money grab.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Flickr doesn't automatically owe any user the right to store their images in perpetuity, (over and above what their terms and conditions stipulate from time to time). I can see why they've made this shift.

Their free account holders have uploaded an immense number of meaningful images since the site was launched—but these accounts have also become a dumping ground for a massive amount of explicit images that are both banal, and of extremely low technical and aesthetic quality. The site has some truly dark corners I've unwittingly stumbled into at times, after inspecting the favourites of members who have followed me or faved my own images. For clarity, I'm not a prude, I appreciate a well executed black & white nude as much as the next guy: but innumerable explicit images uploaded to the site by free account holders are not only mediocre, they have been scraped from third party sites complete with watermarks and are not even the IP of the uploader. The new policies will be a form of laxative for Flickr, by cleansing it of much of this offending content littering their free accounts. I'm good with that (and as I still have under 900 images, I'm presently, only a free account holder, myself). If, as a consequence of this, some members formerly able to do so without charge, now have to pony up for the ability to upload their valued images of their next door neighbours servicing their wives, (or themselves, or their sisters, for that matter), well, I can't recall any nation's constitution inferring the right to engage in online exhibitionism free of charge. They can suck it, as far as I'm concerned (and god knows, they like to).

What also bothers me, however is the preponderance of second life screen shots that have infested the site in the last year or two. A veritable torrent of vacuous, vacant-eyed avatars mis-described as "photography", rather than digital "artwork". (If this comes across as intolerant and somewhat judgy, well, I don't really apologise for that—it does absolutely nothing for me.) It's in plague proportions, but apparently welcomed by site management, from what I have read in some help forum discussions. I assume the pro subscriptions connected to the content are what they find most attractive.

Lastly, few people with a genuine interest in history, or the history of photography, would willingly want historically or culturally significant images to be wiped from the web simply because, for example, the uploader is deceased and unable to renew a pro subscription, or has a free account in excess of 1000 images. This is a genuine concern, surely? Some type of submission process to safeguard, or "set aside" such images (or even, accounts) from deletion would be welcomed by me.

 

[Michael Markey]

Flickr doesn't automatically owe any user the right to store their images in perpetuity, (over and above what their terms and conditions stipulate from time to time). I can see why they've made this shift.

Their free account holders have uploaded an immense number of meaningful images since the site was launched—but these accounts have also become a dumping ground for a massive amount of explicit images that are both banal, and of extremely low technical and aesthetic quality. The site has some truly dark corners I've unwittingly stumbled into at times, after inspecting the favourites of members who have followed me or faved my own images. For clarity, I'm not a prude, I appreciate a well executed black & white nude as much as the next guy: but innumerable explicit images uploaded to the site by free account holders are not only mediocre, they have been scraped from third party sites complete with watermarks and are not even the IP of the uploader. The new policies will be a form of laxative for Flickr, by cleansing it of much of this offending content littering their free accounts. I'm good with that (and as I still have under 900 images, I'm presently, only a free account holder, myself). If, as a consequence of this, some members formerly able to do so without charge, now have to pony up for the ability to upload their valued images of their next door neighbours servicing their wives, (or themselves, or their sisters, for that matter), well, I can't recall any nation's constitution inferring the right to engage in online exhibitionism free of charge. They can suck it, as far as I'm concerned (and god knows, they like to).

What also bothers me, however is the preponderance of second life screen shots that have infested the site in the last year or two. A veritable torrent of vacuous, vacant-eyed avatars mis-described as "photography", rather than digital "artwork". (If this comes across as intolerant and somewhat judgy, well, I don't really apologise for that—it does absolutely nothing for me.) It's in plague proportions, but apparently welcomed by site management, from what I have read in some help forum discussions. I assume the pro subscriptions connected to the content are what they find most attractive.

Lastly, few people with a genuine interest in history, or the history of photography, would willingly want historically or culturally significant imageso be wiped from the web simply because, for example, the uploader is deceased and unable to renew a pro subscription, or has a free account in excess of 1000 images. This is a genuine concern, surely? Some type of submission process to safeguard, or "set aside" such images (or even, accounts) from deletion would be welcomed by me.

Well said .
I couldn`t agree more .

 

[Out to Lunch]

"the preponderance of second life screen shots". What is that?

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

"the preponderance of second life screen shots". What is that?

Eg.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Second Life Avatars

 

[Out to Lunch]

OK, now I wish I hadn't opened that link 😎

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

OK, now I wish I hadn't opened that link 😎

Indeed! In that instance, however the search term actively sought such content out. The real problem is one might be seeking photographs of a particular subject, or genre. Eg something as innocuous as "live music". But the results will be polluted by more of the same. I'm well over it. 🙄

 

[farlymac]

OK, now I wish I hadn't opened that link 😎

I've seen quite a wide array of images when checking out a Follower to see if I wanted to follow them. And a lot of copy-cat stuff too. It's the main reason I follow a lot fewer folks than follow me.

PF

 

[peterm1]

I think that as I read it, their changes basically make sense. A key point in this is getting rid of porn. Lets face it, that is what they are talking about to a significant degree. I am not talking about legitimate nude photos which are artful and artistic but which happen to show (or hint) at a bit too much flesh. I am talking about in-your-face, close up gritty, sweaty porn. A few years ago when exploring Flickr more broadly than I normally do (I was looking for nude photography groups as I was thinking fo doing some) I stumbled on some of these and quickly discovered that there are whole groups (with content usually restricted to members only) dedicated to this kind of content and whole sub groups of users.

Or there were such groups. I think Flickr set about getting rid of these photos and groups some time back. And I suspect they are still doing this. It bothered me at the time that such groups exist on Flickr. Not because I am opposed to porn necessarily - if people want it, it is up to them assuming it is legal porn and they are adults. But I was opposed because Flickr is not the place for it and I would hate to see Flickr become just another grubby corner of the internet where people go to get their rocks off. Which is where it was beginning to head.
But having said this, there is also a legitimate place for art photos of naked men and women. This is almost THE oldest tradition in art. And I see no problem in it continuing on Flickr. Neither does Flickr apparently. In fact Flickr would be the worse for it if it were wholly banned. But sometimes there are shades of grey and the dividing line between art and porn becomes a matter of personal opinion.

The changes they plan seem to me to be sensible from a user perspective- by policing blatant porn and removing it where possible but preserving the right of pro members to have restricted groups this possibly is not a bad compromise. It keeps the "grubs" (who also happen to be cheapsters who do not wish to pay for membership) off the site but allows some latitude.

Never the less, I would hate to see Flickr going down the path of Facebook. A couple of years ago I scanned some old slide photos made by me when sailing in the South West Pacific about 30 years ago. One photo contained an image of two middle aged village women working in a village garden on an island near New Guinea. They were in their normal attire - that is to say, a lap-lap (sarong) with no top. I regarded it as an ethnographic photo just the same as several other dozen photos I posted on my FB page from these remote and sociologically interesting islands. Facebook regarded it as porn and threatened to ban me for life because I had put up one such photo. Though in theory there is an "appeal" process whereby the offending photo is reviewed by a human, their response was "because of COVID were are not processing any appeals for the near term." That was 2 years ago and it is still the case. (What the hell COVID had to do with it remains unexplained) I found out that the initial "review" of the image was fully automated - i.e. it was software based. But their software is not terribly smart - it looks only for indicia of femininity (in the form of female breasts) and the presence of uncovered nipples. If both exist then the photo is deemed to be "porn". Apparently this is known amongst users of the site as FB's "nipple police" (of which I was naïve and wholly unaware). Such badly implemented automated thinning out of nude photos looking for "porn" would be a terrible mistake for Flickr to make and I hope they do not do so. Sensitivity is required - and I think (hope) this fits with their plan.

In short - a blanket ban on all nudity would be a disaster for a photo site like Flickr which at least has some pretensions to catering to photographic artists. By the same token, ignoring the problem of porn potentially taking over the site and turning it into nothing more than a grubby place for people to share photos of them having sex with their wife or girlfriend (a kind of online "dogging" site) would equally be a disaster as it would drive legit users like me away and destroy Flickr's business model. They are trying to tread a fine middle line. Whether it works or not remains to be seen but it is probably not a bad start.

 

[Mos6502]

Flickr doesn't automatically owe any user the right to store their images in perpetuity, (over and above what their terms and conditions stipulate from time to time). I can see why they've made this shift.

This is true. But it's also not good. The problem here is that flickr (like most sites) has in their terms of service, that you agree to their terms, whatever they are, and they are allowed to change to them to anything they want at any time. So far so good. If they make a change you don't want, you pack up and leave. Fair enough. But a lot of people are no longer on the site, and have no idea that these changes are being made. Maybe they'd care, maybe they don't care.

Here's what I do know, and I'm presenting this as an example: There's a very good, and pretty famous photographer who uploaded some of their best work to flickr a few years ago. They no longer post there. Their images are marked "moderate" by flickr - many images contain "nude" women, but in all of these their "naughty" bits are playfully hidden behind conveniently placed objects. It's silly, and I think inoffensive - but these images, and this account are now at risk for deletion. What benefit does this bring anybody? To free up a few kilobytes for some other free account's cat pics? To erase part of Flickr's history? To remove quality content that people might want to see? To scare somebody else into paying up (very unlikely) or leaving (much more likely)?

The other issue is hidden photos. I have a lot of hidden photos. They're photos which I host on flickr and post elsewhere, mostly things like lens tests, or photos of camera repairs. These are hidden so they don't clutter up my Flickr gallery. I've had pro membership for years, but just for example, if I had a free account, and only 50 out of 1000 free photos were hidden, they would be deleted unless I made them public. Again, for what benefit?

I feel like flickr is headed further and further into irrelevance as the internet marches on. Deleting quality content, while forcing inane content to be public probably isn't going to attract new users.

 

[farlymac]

You know, some of the new regulation at Flickr may be driven by the European laws. I think they are trying not to be too draconian about it, but the times are a changing.

PF

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think that as I read it, their changes basically make sense. A key point in this is getting rid of porn. Lets face it, that is what they are talking about to a significant degree. I am not talking about legitimate nude photos which are artful and artistic but which happen to show (or hint) at a bit too much flesh. I am talking about in-your-face, close up gritty, sweaty porn.

There's been some "in-your-face, close up gritty, sweaty porn" that's been exhibited in major galleries and museums as art. Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of men having sex with men are probably the most famous/notorious of them since an exhibit of his work a few years after he died was funded by the US Government's National Endowment For The Arts (which provoked a political firestorm). Jeff Koons did a series of photographs, printed life size, of himself and his then-wife, Italian porn star Cicciolina (real name Ilona Staller) having sex in various positions. He also did a series of sculptures and paintings to go along with the photos. Staller was later elected to the Italian parliament!

Photography critic A.D. Coleman wrote about an exhibit of the photos of Koons and Cicciolina, noting that while the photos were similar to those found in any number of dirty magazines (this was before internet porn became available), there was a long line of people waiting to get in the gallery to view them. Respectable folks who wouldn't be caught dead with a copy of "Hustler" on their coffee tables. Coleman reasoned that a strange transformation occurred when the photographs were hung on the wall of an art gallery. They ceased to be the porn that they were and were instead sanctified as "Art." This made it acceptable for "respectable" people to view them.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

In order to pay for a new (not pre-existing) pro subscription I believe a credit card, Google Pay or Apple Pay are the present options. I've never used Google or Apple payment facilities so don't know what's involved in setting them up. But credit cards are usually traceable back to a human account holder. I wonder if restricting images containing nudity to paid accounts is in part to try and make the identity of those uploading illegal images easier to trace? I reported one such image a few days ago, after I checked a new follower's faves, and blocked them. As is sometimes the case the account was several years old, had numerous faves but no public images of their own.

 

[peterm1]

There's been some "in-your-face, close up gritty, sweaty porn" that's been exhibited in major galleries and museums as art. Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of men having sex with men are probably the most famous/notorious of them since an exhibit of his work a few years after he died was funded by the US Government's National Endowment For The Arts (which provoked a political firestorm). Jeff Koons did a series of photographs, printed life size, of himself and his then-wife, Italian porn star Cicciolina (real name Ilona Staller) having sex in various positions. He also did a series of sculptures and paintings to go along with the photos. Staller was later elected to the Italian parliament!

Photography critic A.D. Coleman wrote about an exhibit of the photos of Koons and Cicciolina, noting that while the photos were similar to those found in any number of dirty magazines (this was before internet porn became available), there was a long line of people waiting to get in the gallery to view them. Respectable folks who wouldn't be caught dead with a copy of "Hustler" on their coffee tables. Coleman reasoned that a strange transformation occurred when the photographs were hung on the wall of an art gallery. They ceased to be the porn that they were and were instead sanctified as "Art." This made it acceptable for "respectable" people to view them.

Yes that's true Chris. Peoples' attitude to "art" is a bit of a mystery to me sometimes.
Back in the day I saw both some of Mapplethorpe's and Koon's work, including the ones you have alluded to in the Sydney Museum of Modern Art (I think) and never could see an ounce of art in them. They were just porn to me but worse than that, seemed to be a fraud on the art community perhaps designed to "take a rise" out of art critics as well as the oh so sophisticated, and yet somehow still sheep-like art lovers. After all if Marcel Duchamp can hang a urinal on a wall - not even a urinal made by him - and have people "Oooooooo and Aaaaah" over it and call it high art, then that is just the very definition of "taking the p#ss out of the art community". And it begs the question what is not art? A pile of sheep's droppings perhaps? (Although I am sure that somewhere there is an art gallery with that on display too - together with a crowd waiting to see it). As I suggested, porn does not bother me in principle (though I am sure some of it would in practice). But when people begin call "porn" art I am about as intellectually offended as I am when others call "art" porn. To continue the urine analogy further I say to such artists "Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining". 🙄 After all I think I can tell the difference between Koons making a statue of him shagging Cicciolina and a statue of say The Rape of the Sabine Women.