Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Politics is in nature divisive. However, I think it’s cowardice on part of AI to block comments on their article they themselves deemed “sensitive.”
If AI think that topic is too sensitive and too political, then why write about it?
So, Yes, AI staff/managements are cowards, hypocrite, and lazy in moderating their own article they think too sensitive.
But it of course they will justify their own action and continue to believe that what their doing is right... right...
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Politics is in nature divisive. However, I think it’s cowardice on part of AI to block comments on their article they themselves deemed “sensitive.”
If AI think that topic is too sensitive and too political, then why write about it?
So, Yes, AI staff/managements are cowards, hypocrite, and lazy in moderating their own article they think too sensitive.
But it of course they will justify their own action and continue to believe that what their doing is right... right...
This is the part not everyone gets: Debate is fine. Calling anyone (another commenter, an editor on the site) a "coward" or a "hypocrite" or "lazy" is not productive.
If you don't like our rules, don't comment. There is no sense in AppleInsider hosting comments that disparage the site, or allowing people who do so to continue participating here. It cheapens the product, it devalues the discussion being had in the comments, and it intimidates new people who might otherwise be inclined to participate in the discussion.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
How about start with educating children, youth, and adults alike to not take nude pics and share it digitally which can be duplicated into millions instead of being collected by social media company which may or may not be able to guarantee 100% that it can’t be hacked.
Im just doing crazy talk... educations people never ever worked.
Besides, you can’t fix stupid. Even with duck tape.
Or, we could take a different approach, and educate people not to behave like arseholes by posting or accessing things they don't have permission to post or access. Crazy, I know, to hold the people doing the wrong thing accountable, rather than the victim.
I don't think sending your nude pictures to Facebook is a good idea, either. For a start, what if you don't have copies of the pictures being used? For instance, if someone took a picture of you in a changing room without your knowledge, and then posted it online. Or even if a significant other took a personal photo with your consent, but didn't share it with you, and then after you break up decides to post it in a classical "revenge porn" scenario. And if you do have access to them, why would you send them to Facebook if they aren't already online, thus risking someone at Facebook leaking them?
I didn't think Facebook really allowed sharing nude pictures, anyway. Regardless, their algorithms should be good enough to flag nude pictures and take appropriate action. They won't necessarily be able to identify the subject and inform them, but they can at least keep track of the photos in order to make resolving complaints easier.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Being a 52 year old ugly male, FB can have all my nude pictures. but I won't pay any damage if someone at FB gets a heart attack when looking at my pictures. They've been warned
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time. There are plenty of other forums to discuss these matters, including Twitter. It's our house, those are our rules.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I find this editorial decision very, very annoying. Frankly, I come here for the comments. If I want to read copy-and-paste Apple stories from other outlets, I can read them there (or on Apple News).
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time. There are plenty of other forums to discuss these matters, including Twitter. It's our house, those are our rules.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I find this editorial decision very, very annoying. Frankly, I come here for the comments. If I want to read copy-and-paste Apple stories from other outlets, I can read them there (or on Apple News).
You're not reading for actual comprehension, then.
And, to be clear, we're not shutting down comments on everything. Just on the political stories, where forum rules seem to be disregarded constantly.
As an example, we tried to leave a political story active last night. It lasted 10 minutes and six comments before two comments profoundly broke commenting rules.
If you wish to continue an editorial decision conversation, or a discussion about what we cover and why in my messages, feel free. I'm at the keys from 7AM to about 6PM ET daily. Do not do so here.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
Interesting. He said it was a Political Outsider discussion from 10 years ago with objectionable images relating to terrorism. Shame there was no moderator to remove the objectionable images.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
The forums were well moderated years ago...by members with moderator privileges. What you've done now is stifle discussion. And while I'm sure the staff is small, AI is indeed acting like a corporate conglomerate. "Corporate" is the perfect word. There was a time that the only things ever taken down were the result of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Now Google sends you a nasty e-mail and you delete an entire forum with hundreds of thousands of replies.
Your error is assuming that it was "a" nasty email from google about forum-goer language and submissions -- mostly from regulars. You're off by several orders of magnitude on the quantity of complaints.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
maestro64 said: Simple solution, girls do not let guys take pictures of you
Girls, do not take pictures of yourselves, either.
Also revenge porn does not work if you do not care if other people see you.
You’re right about everything in your post; I’d just like to add that you should care. That’s what should prevent you from having the pictures in the first place.
Who are you to say that everyone should care? There are lots of people who aren’t paranoid, don’t have an inflated sense of importance, and don’t give a fuck.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
The forums were well moderated years ago...by members with moderator privileges. What you've done now is stifle discussion. And while I'm sure the staff is small, AI is indeed acting like a corporate conglomerate. "Corporate" is the perfect word. There was a time that the only things ever taken down were the result of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Now Google sends you a nasty e-mail and you delete an entire forum with hundreds of thousands of replies.
Your error is assuming that it was "a" nasty email from google about forum-goer language and submissions -- mostly from regulars. You're off by several orders of magnitude on the quantity of complaints.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
We are not the only ones getting the nastygrams from Google in increasing volume and frequency. To be clear, it's isn't about vulgarity at all.
I don't get the whole sexting thing. Surely young people these days are clued up on how the internet works and putting something online is pretty much irreversible, regardless of where and to whom they sent it, and whether or not it was "meant to be private", as if there is such a thing.
At the same time that people (young or otherwise) use technology every hour of every day and consider themselves to be so sophisticated about technology, they're actually not. If they were, they would understand that stealing content on the web and/or posting content that isn't yours is no different than shoplifting.
Actually copyright infringement and theft are different things even to the law. So yes, it’s different than shoplifting.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Yes, but georgie was responding to Neil’s comment that he would swiftly ban anyone who said they disagreed with his assessment of the story topic. That seems a bit much.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Yes, but georgie was responding to Neil’s comment that he would swiftly ban anyone who said they disagreed with his assessment of the story topic. That seems a bit much.
Fully aware -- but I also have no problems with a pre-emptive ban of somebody who says that revenge porn uploading is okay. Somebody getting uptight about that position because of some BS "left political correctness" is nuts.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
The forums were well moderated years ago...by members with moderator privileges. What you've done now is stifle discussion. And while I'm sure the staff is small, AI is indeed acting like a corporate conglomerate. "Corporate" is the perfect word. There was a time that the only things ever taken down were the result of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Now Google sends you a nasty e-mail and you delete an entire forum with hundreds of thousands of replies.
Your error is assuming that it was "a" nasty email from google about forum-goer language and submissions -- mostly from regulars. You're off by several orders of magnitude on the quantity of complaints.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
We are not the only ones getting the nastygrams from Google in increasing volume and frequency. To be clear, it's isn't about vulgarity at all.
Well, since you mention clarity...what is it about then? Your dev’s post said it was about a terrorism post from 2007 with images...?
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
The forums were well moderated years ago...by members with moderator privileges. What you've done now is stifle discussion. And while I'm sure the staff is small, AI is indeed acting like a corporate conglomerate. "Corporate" is the perfect word. There was a time that the only things ever taken down were the result of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Now Google sends you a nasty e-mail and you delete an entire forum with hundreds of thousands of replies.
Your error is assuming that it was "a" nasty email from google about forum-goer language and submissions -- mostly from regulars. You're off by several orders of magnitude on the quantity of complaints.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
We are not the only ones getting the nastygrams from Google in increasing volume and frequency. To be clear, it's isn't about vulgarity at all.
Well, since you mention clarity...what is it about then? Your dev’s post said it was about a terrorism post from 2007 with images...?
No - he said it was the final straw that pushed the staff conversation the rest of the way.
If you wish to continue this conversation, my PM box is open.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Yes, but georgie was responding to Neil’s comment that he would swiftly ban anyone who said they disagreed with his assessment of the story topic. That seems a bit much.
Fully aware -- but I also have no problems with a pre-emptive ban of somebody who says that revenge porn uploading is okay. Somebody getting uptight about that position because of some BS "left political correctness" is nuts.
Ok then banning is not “100% about violating the forum rules”, it can also be for other reasons. Not disagreeing with that, but pointing out the contradictory messages in even these last few posts on what is bannable. As users of a discussion forum, I think there’s a lot of value and importance in knowing, exactly, what’s what. The forum rules attempt to do this, but the interjection that other non-forum-rules things can result in bans too makes the ground a little less steady. Sure we can all agree revenge porn is bad, but now I know it’s possible disagreeing with the writers on other topics can result in bans.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
Google isn’t exactly known for their lack of bias. They dictate social acceptance just as much as any of the 6 (soon to be 5) media outlets which create all the news in the United States.
A country is not only what it does, but what it tolerates. – Kurt Tucholsky
It’s no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. – Jiddu Krishnamurti
Societies are far gone in depravity when toleration is considered a good in itself, without regard to the thing tolerated. – A. K. Chesterton
There are lots of people who aren’t paranoid…
No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine. – William Blum, computer analyst at US DoD
don’t have an inflated sense of importance
Decadence in modern mass multicultural societies begins at a moment when there is no longer any discernible meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices. Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug abuse, criminality, and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage which it is part of his common duty to protect - he no longer feels that he has anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing. – Alain de Benoist
The exact opposite is true of your claims. The society that says “don’t give a fuck” about WHORING YOURSELF OUT IN PUBLIC is the one with an inflated sense of importance. How broken must your worldview be to look down on people who have a sense of privacy and respect the sanctity of their bodies? My stars.
Comments
If AI think that topic is too sensitive and too political, then why write about it?
So, Yes, AI staff/managements are cowards, hypocrite, and lazy in moderating their own article they think too sensitive.
But it of course they will justify their own action and continue to believe that what their doing is right... right...
If you don't like our rules, don't comment. There is no sense in AppleInsider hosting comments that disparage the site, or allowing people who do so to continue participating here. It cheapens the product, it devalues the discussion being had in the comments, and it intimidates new people who might otherwise be inclined to participate in the discussion.
Carry on.
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
Or, we could take a different approach, and educate people not to behave like arseholes by posting or accessing things they don't have permission to post or access. Crazy, I know, to hold the people doing the wrong thing accountable, rather than the victim.
I don't think sending your nude pictures to Facebook is a good idea, either. For a start, what if you don't have copies of the pictures being used? For instance, if someone took a picture of you in a changing room without your knowledge, and then posted it online. Or even if a significant other took a personal photo with your consent, but didn't share it with you, and then after you break up decides to post it in a classical "revenge porn" scenario. And if you do have access to them, why would you send them to Facebook if they aren't already online, thus risking someone at Facebook leaking them?
I didn't think Facebook really allowed sharing nude pictures, anyway. Regardless, their algorithms should be good enough to flag nude pictures and take appropriate action. They won't necessarily be able to identify the subject and inform them, but they can at least keep track of the photos in order to make resolving complaints easier.
Personally I find this editorial decision very, very annoying. Frankly, I come here for the comments. If I want to read copy-and-paste Apple stories from other outlets, I can read them there (or on Apple News).
Actually copyright infringement and theft are different things even to the law. So yes, it’s different than shoplifting.
A country is not only what it does, but what it tolerates. – Kurt Tucholsky
It’s no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. – Jiddu Krishnamurti
Societies are far gone in depravity when toleration is considered a good in itself, without regard to the thing tolerated. – A. K. Chesterton
The exact opposite is true of your claims. The society that says “don’t give a fuck” about WHORING YOURSELF OUT IN PUBLIC is the one with an inflated sense of importance. How broken must your worldview be to look down on people who have a sense of privacy and respect the sanctity of their bodies? My stars.