Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#71

Post by Fluxx »

redcap wrote: post #64
9999 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are public sections of G+ and private sections. If you have a private album limited to 4chan buddies or whatever with tubgirl, goatse, the lemon party, etc. and they took that down, I would find issue with it. But if you've got goatse as your public profile picture, that is an issue that Google has to deal with. I use those examples not because they are directly comparable to what Siegler put up, but because I…

So what if people are horribly offended? Let them be offended. It's not like anything bad will happen. "Someone flipped me the bird, I found it offensive and the next morning I had leprosy!" (Riffing off Steve Hughes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg watch this, it's pretty much my whole argument) It's a finger for fuck's sake. It's not hurting anyone. If you're offended by it you really need to grow up and…

It's Google's social network that they give everyone for free, they can refuse service to anyone. I don't agree with the level of censorship personally (it's a little bit too PC), but I respect Google's right to run their website how they see fit.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#72

Post by 9999 »

redcap wrote: post #64
9999 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are public sections of G+ and private sections. If you have a private album limited to 4chan buddies or whatever with tubgirl, goatse, the lemon party, etc. and they took that down, I would find issue with it. But if you've got goatse as your public profile picture, that is an issue that Google has to deal with. I use those examples not because they are directly comparable to what Siegler put up, but because I…

So what if people are horribly offended? Let them be offended. It's not like anything bad will happen. "Someone flipped me the bird, I found it offensive and the next morning I had leprosy!" (Riffing off Steve Hughes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg watch this, it's pretty much my whole argument) It's a finger for fuck's sake. It's not hurting anyone. If you're offended by it you really need to grow up and…

My point is that it's all relative, and from Google's perspective, something bad will happen--people won't use their service. Telling your potential users to grow up and act like reasonable people is not going to be a successful strategy when your goal is getting literally everyone with an internet connection to use your service. Lots of people are not rational, reasonable or mature. Personally, I don't find dicks and gore to be disgusting. It's just absurd to me. Of course, I understand perfectly well that other people find it disgusting, just as I can understand that there are a lot of people in the U.S. that find the middle finger to be objectionable (hey, maybe they aren't even offended by it, maybe they just don't want to explain what that gesture means to their kid, who then runs around flipping off everyone at their school [true story, I did that when I was about 4 years old]).

Almost any business that is targeted at a mass audience understands this and governs their products accordingly. If you find their censorship to be prudish and ridiculous, you can boycott them and use the Fuck You Network. I suppose if enough people boycott G+ for being unreasonably prudish, maybe they'll change their position, but judging by past performance, it seems like the prudes win these fights. Social networks are not like content distributors like HBO, that can appeal to a relatively small niche and be successful, for G+ it's all or nothing.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#73

Post by kelnos »

blurbytree wrote: post #21
jsz0 wrote: post #12

removing offensive photos It's not offensive to me. I'm all grown up now.

How about when your kid/elderly relative does a search on google and sees it? Google can choose to allow or disallow what they want.

Sure, Google can choose to do whatever they want, but those choices have consequences. This policy could have the effect of making people feel like they can't "be themselves" on G+, and cause a drop in participation. I'm not saying this particular incident would have that effect (MG Siegler appears to not actually care), but it could for other cases.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#74

Post by buff-a »

An image showing a middle finger: banned.

News content from Fox perpetuating lies that cause soldiers and civilians to die: front page in search results.

Google has demonstrated with the photo that its willing to act as a censor. Now that we've agreed that censorship is ok, can we now talk about what we would like to censor?

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#75

Post by jsz0 »

turing wrote: post #23
jsz0 wrote: post #12

removing offensive photos It's not offensive to me. I'm all grown up now.

That's not a valid argument. At the end of the day, if Google wants G+ to succeed they have to draw the line on offensive profile pics somewhere . Regardless of where the line falls, there will always be people who think it should be moved in one direction or another. To just say "I'm not offended by this content, Google must be doing it wrong" is ignoring the reality of the situation and failing to contribute to the…

I'll expand a bit on why I think they're doing it wrong.

When you choose to follow/friend/circle/whatever someone you are making the choice to establish a social connection with that person. Social connections are far too broad to police. I might want to be friends with someone because they make horribly offensive jokes. I might want to be friends with someone because they produce art that could be considered offensive to someone. I might be friends with someone who I like enough to tolerate their offensive side. Whatever the dynamics of that relationship may be Google has no role in its complexities.

The next problem is consistency. I can be way more offensive with words than I can be with pictures. If they want to successfully police people's relationships they will have to also delete anything I say that might be offensive to someone else even if they're not my friend and even if I'm making a private post. As a user I don't think I can possibly understand everything that might offend Google or the millions of users of Google+. That's a huge burden to put on the user. Do I really want to spend the time writing a post on Google+ that may disappear because someone I don't know finds it offensive? I don't think they're doing this yet but if they're choosing to go down this road they are taking the responsibility so they will have to someday. A middle-finger is a pretty low bar. Right off the bat you have to ban 'fuck' from all posts because they are the same meaning.

The solution is pretty obvious. Either hide the profile picture until you friend/circle/whatever someone or give users the ability to rate themselves which solves a variety of other potential problems. I have no problem marking my profile NC-17 or whatever the equivalent would be.

Of course it's Google's site so they can do whatever they want with it. Questioning Google's policies is like a can of soup having an existential crisis.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#76

Post by viscanti »

methodin wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #3

He's not "seriously upset" about the photo. He thinks what's happening is ridiculous, and therefore took the time to ridicule it. He's clearly right. But it's not a moral crusade.

Maybe he should stop to think that more than one person could have reported the photo. It would then be google's obligation to remove it because at that point you could not justify NOT removing it.

Seems silly. I could possibly see that point if you HAD to view his public profile, but it seems like that's entirely optional. Millions of users never see his public profile image. Those offended can simply not "follow" (circle?) him.

It would be easy to justify NOT removing it, even if EVERYONE else found it offensive. There's an option to not follow/view his profile. Under your view, the only votes would be those who found the picture offensive. If the criteria to remove something is that more than one person finds it offensive, almost everything on the internet would be removed.

A (much) better solution is that items that are flagged as potentially offensive come with a warning. Google+ users could choose the level they're comfortable with, much like they do with Google's search results. They deserve to be called out for making an arbitrary decision here, on something so trivial.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#78

Post by AllenKids »

jroseattle wrote: post #6

Pretty sure this would fall under Apple's "objectionable content" policies for their app store. Wonder if MG would complain about that policy, too? :-)

Which brings home the point: You are the product Google is selling, just as the apps in the App Store.

Oh, and :-)

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#79

Post by zobzu »

You see "Google has limited resources" and "cannot warn you before removal".

Made my day.

ps: most removals are actually automated, and warning are (as in would be) obviously automated.

And of course, nothing bad with a finger up (or even in a naked body in fact, but hey). I much prefer the "adult filter" of YouTube, which uhm, is also automated (user vote based).

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#80

Post by zobzu »

Pedrom wrote: post #65

Sorry but I still don't understand why deleting that picture is such big deal? Google has the right to build their community with the rules that they want and the people eager to accept those rules. Mr Sieger has also the right to complain and he did so that should close the case right? I made an analogy yesterday between this site and reddit and the differences between the cultures on both sites. A lot of people dow…

The "accept or move on" rule applies less when such sites are used by the majority of the population.

When it's used by the majority it becomes something you, in many cases, have to be part, that you like it, or not.

That even include "to be accepted at school", mind you. (just like you didn't have to smoke back in the days, but also you were gay if you did not, no matter how wrong that reasoning is).

Based on that new perspective, you may understand that restricting free speech on such services is actually "big" deal (yeah, the quotes are important here. i'd go for medium deal in the current state of affairs.)

Post reply on HN