Tweet
EDIT RE-Writing for Coherence.
In my account is a picture of a model watermarked as being a picture she posts publicly to showcase her work modeling underwear. It is a non-sexual modeling picture that shows off a non-translucent bra and panty set. She is dressed the same amount as if wearing a two piece swimsuit at the beach. There is nothing indecent about the picture and nowhere in the Picture Hosting Site's policy is it stated that people posing in their underwear must be behind any sort of safe search filter. There are two levels of Safe Search Filter the site uses. Moderated (meaning light nudity you may see bare breasts or her top may be see through allowing you to see bare breasts) and Adult meaning that the picture is a full nude with nothing covering the crotch area of the person in the picture or depicting a sexual situation.
What caught my attention was that the two pictures they flagged in my account were modeling pictures showing off a car with a sexy girl leaning against it sans shirt but with non-translucent bra on. No more than you would see in a small halter top. Second picture was as mentioned above. Both were flagged as needing a moderated search filter and I was emailed the policy that the two pictures do not fall under. I responded as such pointing out the pictures do not fall under the policy they sent me. They resent me the policy and told me that they would not re-review the pictures until I had marked them as moderated.
No if they had reviewed these relatively innocuous photos and already decided they were in violation of policy then this "re-review" policy tells me one of two things. Either they never looked but will after I comply or they did look and will use my marked them as Moderated to say "well you obviously think they need to be moderated so we agree"
After telling them in a decidedly impolite fashion "Fuck off and no" (Disclosure I didn't even remember the account existed until they emailed me with their complaint about my content so I don't care if they ban me) I logged out of that account and decided to test a theory that if it was a picture of a man in his skivvies no safe search filter would be applied no matter how much they showed off his package.
Now the way their safe search works is that if your picture was flagged by them or you then you have to log in to see the pictures. There is no just seeing them as they want to make sure the person understands "you may see some naughty bits"
I googled the words "man in underwear (site hosts name)" Sadly i didn't find what I was looking for instead the very first result was a naked man sprawled on a chair smiling at the camera his semi-erect cock on full display with 0 safe search filter from either him or the site. The date on his picture puts it at having been uploaded a year prior to mine. His picture clearly violates their policy. Mine doesn't even pretend to.
I took screen shots of both pictures making sure to point out that on his i didn't have to be logged in to see it. Then I tweeted at the company's Twitter Feed including the point that the picture on the right was being told to moderate itself and the one on the left my five year old nephew could stumble over while searching for Spider-Man Underwear.
I say this because again none of the search words I used were for nudity they were for Underwear and yet there he was front and center.
I should note that my account was listed under a woman's name as its' an old account from when anonymity on the internet was the desired way to be. So I think it's a case of obvious sexism.
Am I wrong?
In my account is a picture of a model watermarked as being a picture she posts publicly to showcase her work modeling underwear. It is a non-sexual modeling picture that shows off a non-translucent bra and panty set. She is dressed the same amount as if wearing a two piece swimsuit at the beach. There is nothing indecent about the picture and nowhere in the Picture Hosting Site's policy is it stated that people posing in their underwear must be behind any sort of safe search filter. There are two levels of Safe Search Filter the site uses. Moderated (meaning light nudity you may see bare breasts or her top may be see through allowing you to see bare breasts) and Adult meaning that the picture is a full nude with nothing covering the crotch area of the person in the picture or depicting a sexual situation.
What caught my attention was that the two pictures they flagged in my account were modeling pictures showing off a car with a sexy girl leaning against it sans shirt but with non-translucent bra on. No more than you would see in a small halter top. Second picture was as mentioned above. Both were flagged as needing a moderated search filter and I was emailed the policy that the two pictures do not fall under. I responded as such pointing out the pictures do not fall under the policy they sent me. They resent me the policy and told me that they would not re-review the pictures until I had marked them as moderated.
No if they had reviewed these relatively innocuous photos and already decided they were in violation of policy then this "re-review" policy tells me one of two things. Either they never looked but will after I comply or they did look and will use my marked them as Moderated to say "well you obviously think they need to be moderated so we agree"
After telling them in a decidedly impolite fashion "Fuck off and no" (Disclosure I didn't even remember the account existed until they emailed me with their complaint about my content so I don't care if they ban me) I logged out of that account and decided to test a theory that if it was a picture of a man in his skivvies no safe search filter would be applied no matter how much they showed off his package.
Now the way their safe search works is that if your picture was flagged by them or you then you have to log in to see the pictures. There is no just seeing them as they want to make sure the person understands "you may see some naughty bits"
I googled the words "man in underwear (site hosts name)" Sadly i didn't find what I was looking for instead the very first result was a naked man sprawled on a chair smiling at the camera his semi-erect cock on full display with 0 safe search filter from either him or the site. The date on his picture puts it at having been uploaded a year prior to mine. His picture clearly violates their policy. Mine doesn't even pretend to.
I took screen shots of both pictures making sure to point out that on his i didn't have to be logged in to see it. Then I tweeted at the company's Twitter Feed including the point that the picture on the right was being told to moderate itself and the one on the left my five year old nephew could stumble over while searching for Spider-Man Underwear.
I say this because again none of the search words I used were for nudity they were for Underwear and yet there he was front and center.
I should note that my account was listed under a woman's name as its' an old account from when anonymity on the internet was the desired way to be. So I think it's a case of obvious sexism.
Am I wrong?
Comment