| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The Mystical 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 604
|
 Topic: Censorship
Posted: December 03 2013 at 01:52 |
|
I find the censorship thing to be utter bullsh*t. Real overkill. I think that it represents a lack of maturity.
|
|
I am currently digging:
Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!
Please drop me a message with album suggestions.
|
 |
yam yam
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 16 2011
Location: Kerberos
Status: Offline
Points: 5828
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 13:42 |
|
Whatever happened to the heaving breasts of Salma Hayek? Has the whole thread been censored?
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 07:43 |
I'll be the first to admit it. That avatar of Nogbad's has made me crack up a few times 
Something very disturbing about blurred utters...
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 07:38 |
^ well, it helps to be in the know ....... thanks guys, now I look like more of a fool than Rodney Toady 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 03:01 |
 Tom Ozric wrote:
Ha ! The cow's teats on Atom Heart is blurred........seems like red-tape b.s. gone overboard....... |
Lizten very carefully, I shall say zis only once, or twice....
Dean on 19th November, 2013 wrote:
AND No, the blurred cows udders in Nogbad's avatar are not an example of ridiculous censorship - it was his own doing as an ironic/sarcastic protest against the censorship This is also true of all the deliberate blurring in many other avatars, including that of three Admins (David, Keshiro and myself). We are all using ridiculous irony to show how stupid the whole thing is. |
|
|
What?
|
|
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 17995
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 02:05 |
|
this site needs more titties
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 01:26 |
|
Ha ! The cow's teats on Atom Heart is blurred........seems like red-tape b.s. gone overboard.......
Edited by Tom Ozric - November 30 2013 at 01:27
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: November 30 2013 at 00:19 |
|
,any news on when my girls will get de-blurred?
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
Barbu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: infinity
Status: Offline
Points: 30845
|
Posted: November 29 2013 at 23:30 |
|
|
|
Nogbad_The_Bad
Forum & Site Admin Group
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team
Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Online
Points: 20320
|
Posted: November 29 2013 at 21:56 |
|
Any updates on this?
|
|
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 15:09 |
the danger of typed word versus seeing someone's face and communicating. Poor guy, a bit like running a hotel and trying to keep all the guests satisfied with no direction or input from the owners. Admin must be for the dogs.....
" you gotta be crazy, gotta have a real need, gotta sleep on your toes......."
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Horizons
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 13:23 |
I feel bad, Dean always has to deal with this garbage.
|
|
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
|
|
Barbu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: infinity
Status: Offline
Points: 30845
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 13:19 |
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 12:47 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
You didn't ask me if I thought it might be seen as sexually suggestive, you asked me to pixelate it if I found it titillating. Big difference. I felt insulted and belittled by your remark. If you can't accept that then there's no point discussing it further. |
offs.
*headdesk*
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 12:43 |
There was no misinterpretation of the word. It is a complete misreading of the whole damn sentence. 
It is perfectly on topic so there is no reason to ask us to get "back to topic" - this is the topic.
In the usual PA way, Max has made a change to how we update information on the Artists Database without informing anyone (including the rest of the Admins) and people are seeking clarification on what that means.
I attempted to clarify what that and failed.
I shall try again:
We cannot police every image uploaded to the PA for content. If the person uploading the image (hereafter known as "you") finds feels *thinks* that the image may possibly cause problems for the PA with the robots at Google AdSense then they should censor the image before uploading it. This means that "you" should use "your" own judgement to decide whether the image is titillating *likely to offend Google AdSense*.
If, as it now seems, "you" find feel *think* "you" are incapable of making that judgement then I guess we will have to draw up a whole page of guidelines of what is and what is not acceptable. For example since the cover of Felona e Sorona has been restored to its original state it is safe to assume that all similar artistic drawings and paintings, such as that for Siero progressivo would also be acceptable.
Edited by Dean - November 19 2013 at 13:07
|
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 12:38 |
|
Geez, get a thicker skin dude.
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 12:30 |
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
It's an artistic drawing - if you find it titillating then pixelate it, otherwise use it as the artist intended.
There are a number of freeware, online and cloud-based picture editors if you don't have one.
|
< => I confirm that the image is not sexually suggestive with adult or mature content.
This includes, but is not limited to images containing:
- Strategically covered nudity
- Sheer or see-through clothing
- Lewd or provocative poses
- Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches
I am not going to fall foul of the censor by trying to second-guess what it deems sexually suggestive. Because I have seen some ridiculous examples of censorship following this development e.g. cow udders being blurred... and no, I don't get titillated or aroused by them either. Thanks for suggesting I might get titillated by that album cover though. Pathetic. I ask a simple question and that's the kind of reply I get from you. |
Not sure what provoked this response from you. I gave a honest answer based upon the information we have - if you find the image titillating then blur it, otherwise use it unblurred - that's not ironic or sarcastic or insulting or demeaning or any thing else - it is the only f**king criteria we have to judge whether GoogleAds will take exception to an album cover so it's the only f**king criteria we can f**king use, if you as a f**king human being find the image to be offensive, provocative, or titiliating or something you would feel embarrassed showing a younger person or your employer then f**king blur it or leave it to someone with f**king better f**king judgement.
|
I don't find it titillating in the least but what provoked my response was you suggesting that I might be titillated by it (and I'm not sure why you persist in saying this). |
I don't GET why you took offence in the f**king first place - I was not accusing you of being titillated by the image. I'm still not.All I'm f**king saying is if you think the image may offend then censor it - use your own f**king judgement!
How f**king difficult is it to express something in your own native f**king language!
seventhsojourn wrote:
When I tried to add the album I got that message (which I posted above) asking to confirm the image wasn't sexually suggestive. |
That does not mean that some really smart piece of software analysed that particular image and found it questionable.
seventhsojourn wrote:
I am not aware of which images have been self-edited or edited by Admin/max... in fact, as I said above, I was unaware of ordinary members/Collabs doing the editing. A simple reply from you, stating something along the lines that the album cover doesn't breach the site's rules, would have been fine. I don't know why you felt the need to bring my feelings about it into the discussion. Now you are also questioning my judgement...thanks a lot for that. And there was me trying to being cautious on behalf of the site: |
I f**king didn't mention your f**king feelings.
Yes, I do now question your judgement, rightly so it appears.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
The site costs money to run. Visitors to the site currently consume 4TB of data a month - that is a huge bandwidth that has to be paid for. Add to that the cost of the maintenance and storage and leasing.
Unless we charge for usage (yeah, right, like that's gonna work) or find a sponsor (not a good idea) then Google Ads are the only viable way of paying for it. So yes, threat of withdrawal of adverts is very serious and very valid. The violation warning notice Max received from Goolge AdSense is very real. If we lose Google Ads we lose the site - plain as.
Personally, I think Google Ads are over reacting and Max is being over-cautious, we need to balance the need for complying with Google's Terms and Conditions and being sensible about it. |
Other people have managed to reply to my post without causing offence, I don't know why you have such difficulty doing likewise. |
wha???
|
You didn't ask me if I thought it might be seen as sexually suggestive, you asked me to pixelate it if I found it titillating. Big difference. I felt insulted and belittled by your remark. If you can't accept that then there's no point discussing it further.
|
|
aapatsos
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 11:15 |
It seems to me all the above confusion was caused by the misinterpretation of the word titillating (had to look that up in the dictionary) 
 please
I am glad I had no "blurring" to do yet - see? prog metal bands are quite reserved after all 
Edited by aapatsos - November 19 2013 at 11:17
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 11:04 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
It's an artistic drawing - if you find it titillating then pixelate it, otherwise use it as the artist intended.
There are a number of freeware, online and cloud-based picture editors if you don't have one.
|
< => I confirm that the image is not sexually suggestive with adult or mature content.
This includes, but is not limited to images containing:
- Strategically covered nudity
- Sheer or see-through clothing
- Lewd or provocative poses
- Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches
I am not going to fall foul of the censor by trying to second-guess what it deems sexually suggestive. Because I have seen some ridiculous examples of censorship following this development e.g. cow udders being blurred... and no, I don't get titillated or aroused by them either. Thanks for suggesting I might get titillated by that album cover though. Pathetic. I ask a simple question and that's the kind of reply I get from you. |
Not sure what provoked this response from you. I gave a honest answer based upon the information we have - if you find the image titillating then blur it, otherwise use it unblurred - that's not ironic or sarcastic or insulting or demeaning or any thing else - it is the only f**king criteria we have to judge whether GoogleAds will take exception to an album cover so it's the only f**king criteria we can f**king use, if you as a f**king human being find the image to be offensive, provocative, or titiliating or something you would feel embarrassed showing a younger person or your employer then f**king blur it or leave it to someone with f**king better f**king judgement.
|
I don't find it titillating in the least but what provoked my response was you suggesting that I might be titillated by it (and I'm not sure why you persist in saying this). |
I don't GET why you took offence in the f**king first place - I was not accusing you of being titillated by the image. I'm still not.All I'm f**king saying is if you think the image may offend then censor it - use your own f**king judgement! How f**king difficult is it to express something in your own native f**king language!
seventhsojourn wrote:
When I tried to add the album I got that message (which I posted above) asking to confirm the image wasn't sexually suggestive. |
That does not mean that some really smart piece of software analysed that particular image and found it questionable.
seventhsojourn wrote:
I am not aware of which images have been self-edited or edited by Admin/max... in fact, as I said above, I was unaware of ordinary members/Collabs doing the editing. A simple reply from you, stating something along the lines that the album cover doesn't breach the site's rules, would have been fine. I don't know why you felt the need to bring my feelings about it into the discussion. Now you are also questioning my judgement...thanks a lot for that. And there was me trying to being cautious on behalf of the site: |
I f**king didn't mention your f**king feelings.
Yes, I do now question your judgement, rightly so it appears.
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
The site costs money to run. Visitors to the site currently consume 4TB of data a month - that is a huge bandwidth that has to be paid for. Add to that the cost of the maintenance and storage and leasing.
Unless we charge for usage (yeah, right, like that's gonna work) or find a sponsor (not a good idea) then Google Ads are the only viable way of paying for it. So yes, threat of withdrawal of adverts is very serious and very valid. The violation warning notice Max received from Goolge AdSense is very real. If we lose Google Ads we lose the site - plain as.
Personally, I think Google Ads are over reacting and Max is being over-cautious, we need to balance the need for complying with Google's Terms and Conditions and being sensible about it. |
Other people have managed to reply to my post without causing offence, I don't know why you have such difficulty doing likewise. |
wha???
|
|
What?
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7711
|
Posted: November 19 2013 at 10:23 |
octopus-4 wrote:
CENSORED !!! |
It was cencored enough in 1973, those who know what supposed to be there, know. 
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Censorship
