ProgArchives censorship

richardh wrote: My main complaint is the moving of threads so you end up being thrown all around the site. Do I want to end up on the fun forum? Do I look like someone who has fun?

Edited by Dean - July 24 2014 at 03:49

Toaster Mantis wrote: The board filters I find silly but am not overtly bothered with, it's mostly the censoring of record cover art I'm annoyed by. Weren't the site admins supposed to work on the same solution as RateYourMusic, where NSFW cover art is blocked for non-registered users but visible in original form when logged in though?

Wow, unbelievable !  Thanks for the info on Google, I had no idea. I now find them to be the most reprehensible organization on earth.Do a Google image search on the word "Nude" and just see what pops up. Not 16th century art or fine art photos, but extreme hard core porn. It appears Google will censor everyone but themselves. Bloody hypocrites! The worst of it being that we, the masses, have no say in or control over what takes place on what is supposed to be a free and open medium. I weep for the future as these puritan azzholes inflict their warped and despicable morals on the world.

Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions about the site administrators being responsible.

thellama73 wrote: Kazza3 wrote: Yeah, the censoring of album art is all Google: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-tells-popular-music-website-to-censor-album-cover-art-in-sexually-explicit-content-ban-9592942.html They're banning 'sexually explicit content' on pages which feature their advertising. It is, of course, absurd, but hardly PA's fault. Clearly Michelangelo's David and Renaissance paintings and the like should be removed from public viewing so that children don't have to endure the horror of gazing upon the human form. In what way is that not PA's fault? Who's forcing them to have Google ads on pages that contain album art? If they want to do that, I can't say I begrudge them the decision, but don't try to pass the buck and pretend that it's somehow out of their control, because it isn't.

^I thought I'd fixed that one. I know I fixed pocketwatch and sweetwater.

I'm opposed to the Google censorship, but as pointed out by the quoted post from Dean earlier in the thread there is little option if the site is to remain functioning.

On a broader note we live in a morally confused world, where little seems to make sense in terms of censorship. Horrendous and morally bankrupt things are going on all the time in the field of politics, economics, warfare and often with the blessing of governments, but for some reason Google - an organisation very much in bed with government and inteligence servcies - think they should be able to able to control images of nudity and the like to "protect the vulnerable" Do they strike you as the kind of organisation who really care about users well being?

I put it out there that it is actually nothing to do with censoring images on grounds of decency, but more to do with aclimating people, getting them used to having web content censored at every turn. People moan about it now. Ten years from now, people will be demanding it and anyone opposing it will regarded with suspicion and in all probabilty will be thrown off forums and social media for rabble rousing and making trouble.

Blacksword wrote: I'm opposed to the Google censorship, but as pointed out by the quoted post from Dean earlier in the thread there is little option if the site is to remain functioning. On a broader note we live in a morally confused world, where little seems to make sense in terms of censorship. Horrendous and morally bankrupt things are going on all the time in the field of politics, economics, warfare and often with the blessing of governments, but for some reason Google - an organisation very much in bed with government and inteligence servcies - think they should be able to able to control images of nudity and the like to "protect the vulnerable" Do they strike you as the kind of organisation who really care about users well being? I put it out there that it is actually nothing to do with censoring images on grounds of decency, but more to do with aclimating people, getting them used to having web content censored at every turn. People moan about it now. Ten years from now, people will be demanding it and anyone opposing it will regarded with suspicion and in all probabilty will be thrown off forums and social media for rabble rousing and making trouble.

Edited by Dean - July 24 2014 at 07:47

Dean wrote: - if that were the case then a Google search for tits would only show you images of garden birds...

Put the word 'blue' in front of t and you sould be fine..

Actually, no still don't try it... I knew a woman who painted her t!ts blue once..

I saw this thread earlier and thought about posting but gave up on it because it was 30 something degrees in the sun, and I would frankly rather watch the family kitten chase butterflies and act accordingly loopy in the garden than typing PA posts on my iPhone

....which I am doing now and it's still a pain in the arse.

Dean perfectly illustrates what I have always said, and that is pretty much that we all are admins around here. Granted some with more buttons to push when they log in, but the fact still remains, so thank you Dean for reminding me.

There is still a bad taste in my mouth about all this. I will refrain from going back to WTF IS HAPPENING?!?!?-mode like 8 months ago, but will say this: there is always a reason to do what companies like Google do, and that is pure and simply money. We can slice this baby any which way we want to, but that's always going to be the bottom line. They can't 'afford' to look bad in the eyes of those that feed em dough.

Edited by Guldbamsen - July 24 2014 at 15:23