Flickr's Weird Doublespeak.

Porn doesn`t bother me in principal either although ,like Peter,I`m sure that some of it may well do in practice.
I`ve had a few occasions where people have "faved" shots of mine and When I`ve looked to see what else they`ve "faved" I found that my shot of "great aunt Mabel " is sitting there surrounded by less than decent company. My only recourse has been to delete my shot from my main page .
 
The other side of this line of thought is what some might consider art, or normal could actually arouse someone else. People get off on some of the weirdest stuff, things most folks wouldn't even consider sexual. One persons vase could be another persons obsession. So the line from normal to perverse tends to drift all over the place, depending on how you observe things. Still, I like to keep the controversial stuff out of my life, and don't appreciate it when someone attempts to slip some abstract porn into a Group I administer. Took me a few days to realize what the image really was before I banned it.

PF
 
Mos6502 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That Is exactly how I felt about Flickr a few years ago. I used it mostly to link pictures here in RFF - now with the update of the new RFF servers permitting direct uploads, i haven't even visited Flickr for months. They can go ahead and delete my pictures and account if they wish.
 
Flickr's announcement is too-cute-by-half marketing-speak. They should've just stated it plainly. That said, I don't have any quarrel with it. Hosting content costs money, after all, and they're not a charity. While the link-rot does annoy me that's a bigger problem.

I honestly don't understand the "circling the drain" talk. Yahoo kinda lost the will to live, which was sad, but the flickr site has been responsive and well-maintained since they were bought by smugmug. And photographers kept posting content all along.

I've had a flickr pro account for many years and I use it all the time for personal purposes. The "community" message boards in groups are pretty dead but I don't care about those. For photo hosting it works great and is very, very active. If I were selling my work I'd probably do that elsewhere, but that's a different topic.

-Bryan
 
That's the thing. Smugmug says flickr's draw is supposed to be the "community"... but about half the groups I'm in haven't had a single post in any of the discussion threads in five or six years. I rarely get comments on photos now - I used to get more comments than faves! People still upload photos, and people still fave stuff, but the "community" aspect is near dead so far as I can tell.
 
Not sure what is going on here.
Freedom and Freebies?

To be honest, I rarely seen something good from free Flickr accounts.
Storage is not free. It applies to all. Artists, history. I doubt Archive or Ireland or Finland or Alberta should be free from storage payment. Anywhere it is same type of storage a.k.a. cloud. And it is not different from your computer storage. Cloud consumes electricity, space in the building and actual storage has support contracts, upgrades.
At some point I won't be able to see Tom A photos on Flickr, for example. Pity, but storage is not free.

Here is description what users can't upload https://www.flickr.com/help/terms, part 7. How is it different from museums and galleries? To me Flickr is the art gallery, but a lot more democratic.
Gallery choose what to show and moderates. Flickr allows to anyone choose what to show, without artistic judging by Flickr and also moderates. Because it is for the public eye. Everything which is for public eye under displaying business is moderated.
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
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.
Click to expand...

best post i've read on this. i've found these scumbags as well. it's kind of entertaining, to a point. it definitely still feels like the old internet, one that is being washed away more and more every day. not that i even care really. flickr feels like the old internet and there is something endearing about it though.
 
Got the email, read the first few lines, then said to myself, oh who cares
I still like , still use flickr
been their since 2009

it's the Internet.., the Wild West
Most sites sell you info under the guise they never would and who knows what else they do ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom