So much for how "social" and "private" they intend google+ to be.
Do not expect a conversation with close friends there.
it's an open mall. officially.
And the first people migrated from facebook boasting the privacy concerns.
Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
101–110 of 136 posts
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by this measure: - if anything were said / written criticizing the Bible, then a single devout Christian could deem it offensive and it would be removed? - if a woman's picture without a burkha were posted, then a single fundamentalist Muslim could declare it offensive and it would be deleted? - if a "blonde" joke were posted, then a single radical feminist could call it offensive and it would be eliminated? Doesn…
IANAL, but I think your #1 and #2 do apply most of the time for anything that can be seen in the public. Defamation of people's religions in a dis-respectful way is generally unlawful (though maybe not illegal). The act of giving someone the finger is generally regarded as a sign of violence. You might have more liberal views than me, but I do think it's a violent gesture. I get the point you're trying to make, but I…
"Defamation of people's religions" falls squarely under free speech in any country that has it. And if you consider "defamation of religion" a "violent gesture", consider re-examining your values. The attitudes you suggest would fit right in in countries still ruled by religious bodies, but they have no place in in civilized societies. (Any country that still places restrictions on speech, or intertwines religion and government, hasn't quite figured out "civilized" yet.)
Also, "unlawful" and "illegal" mean the same thing.
Now, I'd absolutely agree that defamation of religion can potentially offend people. And I suspect that if someone had a profile picture that defamed someone's religion, Google would remove that one too, because they want to keep profile pictures inoffensive to most of their target audience. That does not make such images illegal, though.
For that matter, promotion of religion can potentially offend people, but I doubt Google would remove profile pictures with overtly religious messages, because they don't particularly care about the small number of people offended, and they don't want the massive backlash from religious people, whose ability to stir up angry mobs has only grown with modern technology. (Oops, I've defamed religion there.)
Google could also choose to delete all profile pictures that contained the color red because they don't fit a preferred color scheme. If they did so, they'd attract quite a lot of complaints and ridicule, but they certainly have the right to do it.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#103[deleted]
I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream. Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
> Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such.
I find your post offensive, but I'd never suggest that you shouldn't have the right to post it. (Hacker News would certainly have every right to delete it if they wanted, but I'd find that even more offensive.)
> It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
Speaking of offensive, you just implied that at least three out of ten men would find that an acceptable outcome. I understand the point I hope you meant there ("majority rule" has serious problems if you don't preserve fundamental rights), but you picked a truly awful way to express it.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#104Earlier 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…
You've inadvertantly identified precisely what the real issue is: where is the line drawn? To you, it's at dicks and gore. Dicks and gore HAVE to be taken down!
Well, I've got news for you. Not everyone has the same threshold for tolerance of offensive material. Maybe the middle finger is devastating to me, but I love seeing gore. Who are you to tell me that's childish?
There are rules. Even HN has a set. If you don't like them, don't play.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a finger for fuck's sake, so get over it.
It's a for fuck's sake, so get over it.
The amount of moralizing over what people are "allowed" to find offensive here is amazing. If it were my network, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what MG was doing in his picture, but it isn't my network.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#106Apple doesn't allow offensive apps in its app store either, but somehow, this has never bothered MG Siegler.
Double standards.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#107Earlier 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…
> So what if people are horribly offended?
It's not about this, it's about setting your rules for your property. You want to use a service, you agree to terms of use.
Imagine someone painted a giant middle finger on your house wall, how would you feel about that?
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 an…
Haha. I just Googled "Fuck You Network", and got this link on the first page of results.
http://theangrydrunk.com/2011/11/15/fuck-you-google
It's just one big circle. Oh wait! Doesn't Google+ have circles? And so it goes ... :)
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#109Apple doesn't allow offensive apps in its app store either, but somehow, this has never bothered MG Siegler. Double standards.
Let's petition Google to rename it as Google Real People Store+ then.
Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?
#110Completely misses the fundamental difference between "not allowing", "not displaying" and bluntly "removing" the photo.
Online companies seem to be completely insensitive to what is pretty intuitive in the physical realm: you may tell me what not to do in your shop, but don't touch my stuff.