Comments

  • While I am not a fan of censor­ship, I do think one of the prob­lems is people who use nudity or nude photos as a blud­geon. Just as I don’t want to see animated GIFs of kittens fill my entire stream, I don’t want to see images of geni­talia fill my stream. There is a time and place for every­thing (that isn’t ille­gal). I wouldn’t want to see photos of clothed stat­ues fill my stream. Yes, I can uncir­cle people, but with extended circles, I still see way more than I may choose.

  • Another twist would be post­ing Balthus paint­ings. All of his paint­ings featured young girls and sexual poses. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all advo­cat­ing the sexu­al­iza­tion of chil­dren.…

  • +JD Savage Egads, I’d far rather nipples than guns and knives. It is more that I can support free­dom of speech and not want some­body in my face yelling hate speech all day. I’ll support their right to say things I find repre­hen­si­ble, but I’ll ask them to keep it down a bit when I’m trying to work.

  • I think the prob­lem is people not using circles correctly for pictures, gifs, and regu­lar messages and Google not allow­ing the proper filter­ing tools.

    I don’t think the solu­tion is to allow one opinion/preference of legal activ­ity over the other.

  • What about a draw­ing of the paint­ing of the statue? Or my sketch of the draw­ing of the paint­ing of the statue (which, let’s be honest, would be little more than a stick figure with bewbs… instant clas­sic art).

    Some people deserve to have “I do not have the right to live my life with­out being offended.” tattoo’d back­wards on their fore­heads.

  • What about a picture of the paint­ing of the statue?

    The line is very fuzzy. In some places I’ve lived porno­graphic is limited to actual sex acts. In others, great works of art were consid­ered porno­graphic. It’s just so hard to figure out what is socially defined as porno­graphic in such a way as to not offend the most people.

    That’s why I’m a fan of pref­er­ence settings. The posters has to / should set an age level and the viewer should set their pref­er­ences to not show those limits if they are offended. It’ incon­ve­nient for both but makes it to where both sets of rights are protected.

  • +JD Savage Honestly, I’m a big fan as well, and wish that we would reverse our weird sense that violence is good and nudity is bad. In the mean­time, I work at home and when my wife wanders into my office and see boobs, boobs and more boobs, she (quite correctly) surmises that I am distracted and not getting my work done.

    I guess that is my point. It isn’t about the right or wrong of the matter. It is about not pound­ing people over the head with any content that is overtly intended to be distract­ing rather than engag­ing. Whether that is aw, cute images or oh, baby! images doesn’t matter much.

  • http://​www​.waymark​ing​.com/​w​m​/​d​e​t​a​i​l​s​.​a​s​p​x​?​f​=​1​&​a​m​p​;​g​u​i​d​=​6​5​7​e​1​0​d​3​-​c​8​7​1​-​4​9​1​a​-​b​7​1​2​-​8​8​d​d​7​8​6​1​2​d70
    I saw this in my trav­els and was not the least offended. I don’t remem­ber my wife even comment­ing. The statue is quite large. I do not think a boy would be affected partic­u­larly seeing it. I can’t speak for a little girls perspec­tive.

  • +JD Savage a bare nipple poked me in the eye once. Was a bit painful, made my eye water. Don’t know if that consti­tutes harm though.

    Yes, I’m being a bit comi­cal but it really did happen. Was awkward moment.

  • +Ben Langh­in­richs Well between Circles, Mute and Block (which will take care of most things) G+ have given us some filters.

    I would like to see more person­ally, but I’m getting increas­ingly both­ered by people just report­ing any image they see that happens to contain flesh.

  • I’m a big fan of pref­er­ence settings as well, although I would partic­u­larly like ones that were easily turned on and off. When my kids are using my computer for school research, the Google search filter is set to a safer search than when I am doing research for my writ­ing. Simi­larly, in the middle of the day when I want to engage but not be distracted, I’d prefer a no nudity setting. When I am not busy with work, bring it on if you like (although I person­ally prefer a bit of subtlety — whether you can get it up or not doesn’t have to be a matter of public record).

  • What +Shirese Louie said. Unless there was a guar­an­tee that people would use circles prop­erly, or there were some sort of auto-filters for content, nudity would have to be disal­lowed because this is a public space (as a social network open to all, it is very much a public space). 

    And it doesn’t help the cause when you post this stuff publicly rather than to circles who’ve already some­how agreed that they want adult content. Which is pretty much like flash­ing some­one in public. 

    I don’t person­ally have an issue with nudity in art or photog­ra­phy which I think is how this whole conver­sa­tion got started, but you have to respect that not every­one wants to see some­thing suddenly in their stream with­out warn­ing because they might be at work, have kids or other mixed company at their shoul­der, etc etc. 

    But at the end of the day, there are a lot more impor­tant things going on in the world. Seri­ously. Not having boobs on G+…in the grand scheme of things? How impor­tant is this really?

    Please don’t give me the line about censor­ship and rights either, because I’m going to check your stream to see if you’ve done any complaining/reporting on censor­ship issues that actu­ally affect our abil­ity to partic­i­pate in our govern­ment as we were intended because these issues are current and are the real issues of the defense you claim.

    I also want to urge you to see the other side of the issue being argued here. For exam­ple, the concern that the line is blurry between what can be censored and what isn’t. EXACTLY. This goes both ways. So even some­one who wants to see nude art could suddenly start getting more porn, less art in their stream. 

    Or that some­one has a right to view what they want? EXACTLY. And some­one has a right to not have unex­pected things pop up in their stream. Those people can block, report, etc you say? Wait, isn’t that the complaint? The solu­tions are simple to filter that stuff out? EXACTLY. On the other side the solu­tions are simple too. Take it out of the public space.

  • +Eoghann Irving Circles help some, although I wish I could choose multi­ple circles to follow at a time, or a couple to not follow at a time. Mute is great when people are reason­able, about nudity or cat GIFs, but when thirty images show up in five minutes, I’d spend all my time muting. Block­ing or uncir­cling is fine for those few people who go beyond the bounds of my patience.

    None addresses the prob­lems well. I may follow +Doc Harvard because he has great posts about writ­ing, or some­one like +Tessie L’Amour for wit and sass, but they both also may write about erot­ica that I wish I could filter out at certain times. Google+ simply doesn’t offer an aware­ness of how we like differ­ent things at differ­ent times and in differ­ent roles.

  • Flesh is bad, m’kay? Why else would fash­ion design­ers only allow models to have skin and little flesh? The flesh might distract from the clothes! Flesh, eek!

    More seri­ously, humans are an absurd species. Is there another species out there that is not comfort­able with its own flesh? I don’t recall seeing too many giraffes in ‘modest’ dress. There’s no lion diet programmes. Sorry, this is a bit away from the point of being distracted by pictures or which pictures are OK in an online commu­nity. I was struck by how much time we spend fret­ting about this sort of thing though. 🙂

  • +Jennifer Williams What I posted can be seen in public spaces through­out the world. If you object to that… save your­self some grief and stop follow­ing me.

    You see G+ is not a public space like a park. You control what you see and who you see.

  • Er, by ‘this sort of thing’ I mean the nudity/porn line, I’m not imply­ing that every­one should post every­thing all the time… yeah I’ll shut up now. 🙂

    (P.S. ‘edit’ is for people who push the right button!)

  • Well said, +Jennifer Williams. Not that I think we should restrict every­thing, as there is plenty of writ­ten stuff that some would find offen­sive and want banned as much as boobs. It is more that I wish there were a) better filter mech­a­nisms, and b) more civil­ity amongst posters. You may feel strongly that you have a right to post any content, but if you are fairly sure it will be objec­tion­able to a lot of people, what are you prov­ing by post­ing it publicly rather than on a page or website or to a limited circle? Are you saying that your rights auto­mat­i­cally trump the rights of others?

  • I say let people post what­ever they want. Only make G+ 18 or over site. Let the people filter out those that post what they consider vulgar. It’s so easy to block and filter people out on G+ anyways. Other­wise we have no choice but to go with where ever Google decides the line should be at.

  • I agree completely, +Eoghann Irving. I would far rather have a way to control what I choose to see, and at what time, then to limit others any more than neces­sary.

    +David Louin I have been avoid­ing Chrome because I am uncom­fort­able already with the lock Google has on Inter­net content, but I may need to move to it for the exten­sions. Thanks.

  • The ques­tion remains, what consti­tutes objec­tion­able? And if we are to consider what others may find objec­tion­able, it may be impos­si­ble to post pretty much anything. Some­where out in the world there are those who will find anything you have to say, any picture you post person­ally offen­sive. You may not think so, but if the feel­ings of others are para­mount, you have no real say.

    As for myself, I prefer to err on the side of creativ­ity and free­dom of expres­sion.

  • +Brian Lawrie But I don’t want to block people, I want to filter. I circle many people who post great content much of the time, but also post content that I’d rather filter. I post content of a polit­i­cal nature that many of my geek friends abhor. I’d like to be able to tag that so that they could safely follow me for the other content and not get bashed over the head about our differ­ences in polit­i­cal philos­o­phy, and tag the writ­ing stuff so that they can follow that when they like, not when they are focused on work.

    We are multi-faceted, and Google+ needs to support that if it is going to be a truly useful plat­form over time.

  • +David Louin I bet you wouldn’t have a hard time distin­guish­ing what is likely to offend lots of people versus rela­tively few. Free­dom of speech doesn’t mean shout­ing anything you like at any time, because soci­ety gets both noisy and irri­tat­ing. Pick and choose which creative and free expres­sions to make public and which, that you are quite sure will be offen­sive to many, to make to a more limited audi­ence. Social cour­tesy is part of a strong soci­ety, not just rights. Rights are impor­tant, but they don’t trump all else (which is why shout­ing Fire in a crowded theater is not accept­able)

  • +Jennifer Williams your argu­ment is flawed.

    Let’s say a large enough group of people don’t like Furbies, I know some people who thought they were scary. Let’s say this group of people have enough influ­ence to get it removed because this is a public place.

    Now let’s say another group of people with suffi­cient influ­ence doesn’t think bologna sand­wiches should be on here and they get it removed.

    Now let’s say Elmo, cute cat pictures, cars, reli­gion, poli­tics, babies, people’s faces of a certain type, people of a certain body build, people who speak certain way and so forth. What if a group of suffi­ciently influ­en­tial people got all of this removed because this is a public place. Well then people will scream this is Nazi Germany, Commu­nist Russia, China.

    Because we are all indi­vid­u­als with indi­vid­ual pref­er­ences it’s not fair for me to impose my beliefs, ethics, moral­i­ties, way of life on you nor you to do the same to me.

    What is fair, and this is where I really think Google, and other place like this should focus, is on tools to create the unique indi­vid­u­al­ized expe­ri­ence I want. Then I can’t impose my real­ity on you and you can’t impose yours on me. Give me the tools to choose to allow you into my bit of real­ity or not.

  • Filter­ing is not the answer. Curbing the desire to taylor the world so it best fits your social, polit­i­cal, sexual world view is the answer. If you don’t want to occa­sion­ally see nudity or be shocked by someone’s opin­ion, then one can always stop using the inter­webz.

  • +John Arring­ton Wood­ward What do you say to those who would like to get on and network during their lunch hour at work? They might be prevented from partic­i­pat­ing because they can’t filter out stuff which is not objec­tion­able to them, but is to their company. We don’t have to conform only to our own social mores.

  • +Ben Langh­in­richs You have a valid point. 

    However, one of the reasons I moved from Face­book was because I occa­sion­ally posted links to arti­cles concern­ing reli­gion, such as the absur­dity of taking any trans­la­tion of the bible liter­ally. (I am an Epis­co­palian of the think­ing vari­ety, border­ing on Deist.) The nature and language I got from the more conser­v­a­tive types was sad. The screeds I got from the athe­ists were worse. And one Muslim was posi­tively livid! The arti­cles I linked to were schol­arly and tech­ni­cally correct. Yet I managed to offend more than a few. I had to delete them just bring a level of peace back to my stream. lol!

    I prefer G+ because I can filter who my posts go to… more or less.

  • I’m think­ing they ought to prohibit profes­sional wrestling. I am offended by (insert lurid descrip­tion here) and wish I didn’t have to change the chan­nel when that stuff pops up on my TV!
    +Eoghann Irving Is there a TV filter? I used to hear about the v-chip.

  • +Doc Harvard That seems like false logic. You are saying that because some­body might object to anything, there is no way to guess what is objec­tion­able to many. Videos of sex acts are thus equated to furbies, while common social under­stand­ing is not partic­u­larly diffi­cult. The prob­lem comes when trying to dictate rules, not when trying to deter­mine them for your­self.

    Note: I agree completely about giving us the tools to carve out our own rules. Until they do, I think many of us could prac­tice restraint and not simply go on about rights.

  • I defi­nitely think people should be allowed to post what­ever they want. I will uncir­cle some­one who posts a ton of graphic nudes, though, simply because I like to go on G+ while at work and I sit in an open cube farm. It’s not because I am offended; it just doesn’t work for me. If people were to post links to graphic pics, that would not be an issue at all. But again, this is about my use of G+. I don’t wish to see any restric­tions put in place from on high.

  • +Ben Langh­in­richs I would say that the prece­dent has been set again and again that private indus­try has the right to filter content in a way that the govern­ment does not. The worker has no innate right within the private work­place to social media.

    However, I take it you read my post as suggest­ing that G+ should remove filter­ing or the possi­bil­ity of filter­ing. I did not intend that. I was aiming at the consumer and his or her behav­ior. The desire he or she has to have a puri­fied and puerile view of the world is one that should not be indulged simply for the sake of indulging it. There are larger, social concerns at stake. +Doc Harvard’s argu­ment ad absur­dum, while over the top, points at the essen­tial complex­ity of the issue, a complex­ity that cannot be reduced to absolutes.

  • +David Louin I know that one, I have learned not to post about reli­gion on FB as I know a few fierce athe­ists and one or two creation­ists as well as all the other assorted believ­ers of vari­ous types. I forget they are there though, and then post an arti­cle about creation­ist muse­ums or poli­cies or some­thing and cause a huge argu­ment by acci­dent. :-/ I like that people will defend their views vigor­ously but it is very easy for the anger to over­whelm the argu­ment.

  • +Ben Langh­in­richs perhaps I didn’t commu­ni­cate clearly enough.

    I’m not saying some­body. Some­body is often ignored, or worse. A group of some­bod­ies with suffi­cient influ­ence is a differ­ent matter. In the case of a group with suffi­cient influ­ence a furby is the same as a depraved sex act if it’s not consid­ered accept­able.

    As exam­ple, we can look at books. Vari­ous groups, some­times very small groups, of influ­ence have had suffi­cient influ­ence to get books band and burned. Here’s a nice list: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​B​a​n​n​e​d​_​b​o​oks

    I person­ally don’t think any of the books on the list should be banned / burned. I wouldn’t want to read some of those books on the list but I don’t have the right to deny you the oppor­tu­nity to read them, even if I form a group of people that can lever­age enough influ­ence to do it.

    No, the only differ­ence between a furby, a book and a depraved sex act [ I’m not talk­ing about anything ille­gal. ] is the perspec­tive of the person, how much influ­ence they have to effect the world they live in and how much they can shove their world into mine.

    Sure, there’s should be some basic public decency and cour­tesy but it should be very basic in nature. After all, I am not you and you are not me. If we were each other then none of us would be having this conver­sa­tion right now.

Comments are closed.

Respond