Back to the discussion at hand, I have no influence over acceptible forms of nudity on the site, I am giving my personal oppinion which could be contridicated by the web devs if they are not in agreement, they after all have the final say so. Further more, I've also struggled with the question what is acceptable myself, as there are provocative silhouettes on the site, which liftarn believed should be acceptable and gave a valid point, so when screening those images, I now tend to ignore them.
It's a fine line we must walk, there are many situations when an image contains nudity but is not of a sexual nature, but may still need censored, I could give examples but it's not necessary as we all have an imagination.
I value your contribution to this discussion, and trust me I am trying to see both sides of the coin, but we do need to get something pinned down in writting officially if only to avoid it being a subject that is reignited again in the future, as it's a controversial topic.
On the plus side, the images however controversial they may be are still accessible, just to registered users.
]]>Incidentally, if you are interested Openclipart did have a policy on nudity and it did kind of change a bit over the years. Some of the ones that have been reported here were reported there too, but many of the innocent ones were not. The official policy was graphic nudity had to be marked NSFW (they had a toggle switch) but incidental cartoon non-sexual nudity was typically not marked as such. (Also of note, they also worried about wanting school clicks so there was debate on there about weather we should even have sexual NSFW clipart at all.)
]]>Where I live UK societal norms dictate that men who are topless is acceptable, but women who are topless isn't. I don't know at what stage within the evolution of social behavour this became a norm, I only know that right now, in the present day in th UK this is how it is, I realise it may be different for others, or more relaxed in some placed. Artwork found in museums or on churches are relics from the past, created in a time when social norms were very different. Of course if you take a child to church or gallery then they are going to see images of this nature, but their exposure to these images is very low and inconsequential, what you are suggesting is the opposite.
At the end of the day it is not the sites responsibility to teach anatomy, sex education, or define what is or isn't nude art, that is the responsibility of parents, guardians or teachers when they feel the time is right to educate children on those matters.
]]>rob_s, I think you missed the point about culture differences? You were saying "as some traditions can also be seen as being unpleasant to citizen of developed countries" with the example of whale hunting. Japan and Norway both hunt whales and would you say they are not developed countries?? You don't realize you are putting your own claims of what is "civilized" from your own culture bias. I think it is difficult if we start censoring too much. Yes, I think clearly sex images are porn and aren't needed. But nudity when artistic seems odd to censor. There are plenty of nude statues and paintings in museums, can kids not go to museums? And why censor religious items just because someone might be offended? I don't know. I agree with making it school friendly around here. But disagree that school friendly means conservative American Christian school. The world is a big place.
Both Japan and Norway are developed countries instead of knit picking and analyzing every word said, you should instead focus on the point I was trying to make, somethings are offensive to others, this might be a cultural difference or just someone sensitivity to a certain subject. Lets go back to whale hunting, I personally have a problem with developed countries like Norway and Japan carrying out whale hunting, as I find the practice unnecessary, that's not to say I feel the same way about an eskimo doing it who depends on the practice for survival, either way I would see an image posted to a site depicting this as grotesque and insensitive and if I had my way I would report it. Fortunately, as I understand it we are only talking about censoring nude images. You have said nude images with artistic value should not be censored but where do we draw the line? it couldbe considered xart is art, but some might say it's porn.
]]>In response to the Censorship issue, I thought this had already been resolved as you have seen the Web developers response on this. From my own perspective, I have no children and don't believe in god, I believe in evolution and still think kids should not have to be subjected to questionable images, they have their entire life to learn about human anatomy and the darker side to human nature. I would say instead of looking at this issue as an adult, and instead try to look at it from a childs perspective, do they really need a visual depiction of Ménage à trois and what benefit does it serve them. Yes to an adult it is funny, and possibly also to a teenager but would a 3 or 5 year find any enjoyment form it, my guess is no, which is precisely why it should not be accessible from the front page, your entitled to disagree but the web developer have already given you their answer, and I doubt they are prepared to change their stance on the subject.
This is precisely why there needs to be a code of conduct placed on the site, to lay this issue to rest once and for all.
]]>Rob_s wrote:
Could you perhaps use the reply function instead of editing my message? When you do I can't see that you have replied without checking the thread.
]]>There are plenty of nude statues and paintings in museums, can kids not go to museums? And why censor religious items just because someone might be offended? I don't know. I agree with making it school friendly around here. But disagree that school friendly means conservative American Christian school. The world is a big place.
This!
If it's something kids will see in museums, on the beach, in the supermarket and on TV it shouldn't be censored. If we let the Texas Board of Education who brought us hits like "KKK and Jim Crow laws never existed" and "evolution is just a theory, but creationism is OK" decide what we should or shouldn't allow it's a very different matter.
]]>Can I just ask though do silhouettes of a naked people those where they are posed provocatively also count as nudity, I've seen a lot of these being marked as such even tho there is nothing on show, if you get my meaning.
I'd say no. Such silhouettes was use in the into to old James Bond movies so...
Rob_s wrote:
I suppose you are right, some of the old opening sequences seem to have been allowed, to be honest I thought all bond movies were PG, wasn't until I checked I learned otherwise, thank got my parent paid no attention, and blockbusters never seem to have minded either:https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/uk-us-spain-ratings.jpg
Can I just ask though do silhouettes of a naked people those where they are posed provocatively also count as nudity, I've seen a lot of these being marked as such even tho there is nothing on show, if you get my meaning.
]]>This is our idea. Please suggest if you have something better.
]]>OK,for now all images reported as explicit content are accessible only if registered.
Also blur with watermark will be added to preview images.
And I already see that it has been abused. Examples include
https://freesvg.org/corpjack (political reasons)
https://freesvg.org/Red-e-mail-icon (spam)
https://freesvg.org/gop-america-flag (political reasons)
https://freesvg.org/communism-wallpaper (political reasons)
https://freesvg.org/coexist (religious reasons)
https://freesvg.org/when-you-pirate-mp3 … -communism (political reasons)
https://freesvg.org/refugees-welcome-1573139765 (obviously it may be offensive to racists)
https://freesvg.org/act-of-slavery (obviously it may be offensive to racists)
As well as several more.
Rob_s wrote:
Thanks Liftarn, I figured it would be only a matter of time, Webdevs, I think the report function may need to be only accessible to registered users at some stage, to prevent this sort of abuse.
[FUTURE FEATURE] also a clearly defined standard of acceptable images a sort of moral code of practice need to be written up at some point, so as Liftarn pointed out, we do not find ourselves blocking everything, Once forum user numbers are up, I suggest putting together a focus group made up of registered users where you state the target audience, and we the community then vote on the types of images to be marked NSFW such as: racially motivated / nudity / bad taste / Xenophobia that kind of thing. Or if anyone has any other idea's then please comment.
]]>