Bitchie > Status Update

How did they even know to ban him? Seems like there's a traitor/censorship police in our midst.

People friend people who are friends with other people, someone likes something someone else finds objectionable, they complain instead of ticking the little "x" in the friend corner, and here we are.

It could be fixed so easily if they fixed a way to disable images in people's feeds, but it could also be fixed if people actually edited what comes up in their own feeds.

I don't know who flagged Marco, or anyone else, but wanting people to put NSFW pics behind a NSFW spoiler tag so they aren't all over a main feed that might be accessed at work is hardly homophobia, censorship, or hating. Defriending is only an option if you also defriend everyone who likes the status.
What is the objection to spoiler tags: I don't understand?

I really doubt it was someone who reads MM. But I am friends with people who don't read erotica, and I'm sure many others are too. A friend of a friend can flag. It can be thrice removed.

People are petty, judgmental, and vindictive. As a society, we're too quick to point fingers, scream blame, and sue. This is no different.

It's a really disturbing trend, and I agree with Bitchie that if the option to block gifs existed, members could simply ban images from their stream rather than flagging.

There will always be assholes who won't do that because they get off on causing misery and being bigots, but then GR could (should) respond with, You have this choice to block images; please do so.

I don't think this has anything to do with bigotry or homophobia. I enjoy the occasional gif as much as the next person but sometimes I can't even go on GR at work because the gifs are too risque for the office. Hell, some of them are too risque at home where my family could walk in and see them. I agree with Emma. Why can't people just use a spoiler tag for the NSFW gifs or pics?

I don't mind using spoiler tags (not that I use many images anyway, I just like looking), but I still say it would be easier if GR gave us the option of turning images on and off depending on our own tastes or situations (or locations).

Bitchie *Hates GR Censorship* wrote: "I don't mind using spoiler tags (not that I use many images anyway, I just like looking), but I still say it would be easier if GR gave us the option of turning images on and off depending on our o..."

but I like teh kittens. Also men kissing when they have their clothes on. Spreadsheets are always easier to look at when interspersed with kissing menz.

I'm the same way on Tumblr. I want to see the pretty mens and the kissing mens, but I don't to always have the really explicit stuff popping up. I can never get the NSFW tags and stuff to work on there.

I've been flagged once for a review that had two sexy images. The men were dresses, and both gifs were in spoilers.

lol, my Tumblr feed is barely Safe for Home. Safe for Late at Night in a Dark Closet When I'm Sure I'm Alone, maybe.

Lol Emma, mine is usually more tame but sometimes not.

@ Dani: See, that's what I'm talking about right there. If someone didn't like the image they could approach the person they're following and ask them to relax on liking that stuff or to post it behind a spoiler. Instead they flag on purpose to get someone kicked off. That's why I think it's vindictive and fucked up.

Erika, ITA. It is vindictive. It makes me crazy.

Emma Sea wrote: "lol, my Tumblr feed is barely Safe for Home. Safe for Late at Night in a Dark Closet When I'm Sure I'm Alone, maybe."

Uhm, yeah. Surfing Tumblr at work and nearly getting caught; once in a life time experience that I don't care to repeat.

The solution to the porny GIFs and whatever else qualifies as NSFW seems painfully easy and a win win situation for all: GR should ask members to hide them behind spoiler tags as a rule. That way, no one needs to get the boot and no one is forced off GR during work either.
Of course, this would mean finally implementing HTML for status updates and a certain level of subtlety and sympathy towards its members, things that I doubt GR is interested in.

Although I'm personally not bothered by it, I understand why the NSFW stuff bothers members. For me, too, it gets a little tiresome when surfing GR at work and the same NSFW status update pops up in my feed over and over again (and needs to be skipped fast every single time because it's so easy for people to get the wrong impression). You don't have to be friends with those with a love for porny GIFs to be bombarded with them anyway.

Adultreads?:p

I would join Adultreads so hard!

The pics / gifs in question here were NOT pornographic. They were, however, not abiding by the 'nudity' rules, where it doesn't even can be implied that people are nude.

Two weeks ago, Marco changed his flagged review, and din't post anything else after, that would have been a problem. My guess is, they checked his profile anyway, because of him being flagged three times, and found something in older reviews or posts.

Yeah. The main issue is that the GR TOS is simply a hot mess. The rules are unclear, were never communicated and are randomly applied. The answers in the Feedback Group are ambivalent at best.

I remember that after the TOS change in 2013 the most vocal members were (at least for some time) singled out again and again. It's no wonder people are afraid and unsure of what's allowed and what not when apparently all it takes are several flags for your profile to come under review. This makes being active on this site a tricky business.

Then there's no way to discuss things in a professional manner with a real, living person at GR customer service (which really was never intended for us members to begin with). Since the silent disappearance (scapegoated? ditched?) of the head of CS, Kara, who left after the TOS PR disaster back in the summer of 2013, I don't think her position was ever taken up again?

AGREED!

There was a butt pic? I take everything back ;-) It seems I don't even see this anymore :-P

I'm wary with people I don't know, too.

I think I missed this... But with all the deleting on here... no wonder ;-)

Emma Sea wrote: "lol, my Tumblr feed is barely Safe for Home. Safe for Late at Night in a Dark Closet When I'm Sure I'm Alone, maybe."

"Opening your tumblr feed in public is like playing gay p0rn roulette"... or something like that.

Reading this whole discussion one question popped into my mind: Why does everybody open/surf GR at work?

There is a time for social media and there is a time for work. So don't complain about that.

There are also things called breaks and lunch at work.

Wow, then I envy you. I have half an hour for lunch, which I actually need for eating and an quarter of an hour for some getting a cup of coffee and toilet breaks. No time for surfing in that breaks for me.

Tolerance took a nosedive when it became censorship. I have to wonder how much it was about gifs, and how much it was about one of Marco's review. The flagging on Marco was too frequent and suspect-but then again, I didn't know that anyone could see the review -but I'll say this to people who love to flag -be a reasonable human being- instead of flagging and exhausting your finger, why not simply send an email to the GR user and let them know how you feel, but then again, a flagger doesn't have the balls to do that. They just hide behind the convenient, murky rules from GR.

But each of us needs to email GR about these murky rules and get some action on the mods of GR to issue rules that make sense. In the meantime, I'll be basking on the freedom, allowed in Leafmarks because I don't have the stomach to abide by GR rules that hurt my friends. Banning someone forever from a site is draconian and damaging. I miss Marco HERE! He made my day better. Some days he was the ONLY thing that could make me smile or laugh out load like a loon. It's GR loss, but it's also my loss, and that makes me mad.

The GR policy is random and only enforced when someone flags, so it becomes a witchhunt. So if an author gets angry at a negative review, he or she could have friends or followers flag your reviews.

And the three strikes rule without being able to have a conversation with a live human being is insane.

I have wondered if GR has the rule about nudity/pornography in gifs because they're covering their asses since they don't restrict users to 18 and over. I would be fine with them clearing it up and specifying that such images should be placed behind a spoiler tag (still can't do that in statuses for some reason, yet Leafmarks has managed to have that functionality - get with the program GR!) or only post them in groups that are restricted to those 18 and over.

Sarah_loves_books wrote: "Jenna wrote: "I have wondered if GR has the rule about nudity/pornography in gifs because they're covering their asses since they don't restrict users to 18 and over. I would be fine with them clea..."

Hahaha! Let's be realistic; it's not like they can't find those images at any point by using master google.

I just use my phone at work for GR; problem solved.

~~Dani ♥ semi-colons~~ wrote: "Sarah_loves_books wrote: "Jenna wrote: "I have wondered if GR has the rule about nudity/pornography in gifs because they're covering their asses since they don't restrict users to 18 and over. I wo..."

Oh I agree, I just wonder if they'd be legally liable for hosting "pornographic" images on a site that has no over-18 restriction.

Jenna wrote: "~~Dani ♥ semi-colons~~ wrote: "Sarah_loves_books wrote: "Jenna wrote: "I have wondered if GR has the rule about nudity/pornography in gifs because they're covering their asses since they don't rest..."

I don't know. People do it in private groups already. And clearly that gets into the sticky question of what exactly is pornography? Is it half an ass showing? Is it a visual of the sex act where both people are nearly clothed? Is it a lot of cleavage? Is it the hint of a blow job? How do you define it? Why not just offer the option of blocking ALL images from one's feed?

I don't know, and I can't find it in the Terms of Use at all. The word nudity isn't even mentioned. I've seen the email quoted on here that they send to people who've been flagged, but why isn't that explanation put into the terms? I think most everyone has a general idea of what's considered NSFW, and those could be put in a spoiler tag if GR would add that functionality for status updates.

~~Dani ♥ semi-colons~~ wrote: "The GR policy is random and only enforced when someone flags, so it becomes a witchhunt. So if an author gets angry at a negative review, he or she could have friends or followers flag your reviews..."

Bingo! And that's why I think Marco's flagging was personal to the person that did the flagging - it's a way to get rid of reviews an author and their fans don't like.

Jenna wrote: "I don't know, and I can't find it in the Terms of Use at all. The word nudity isn't even mentioned. I've seen the email quoted on here that they send to people who've been flagged, but why isn't th..."

If that were so, they'd have to get rid of too many book covers to count!

Jenna wrote: "I don't know, and I can't find it in the Terms of Use at all. The word nudity isn't even mentioned. I've seen the email quoted on here that they send to people who've been flagged, but why isn't th..."

When I was flagged, I read through the TOS, which are insanely vague. I pointed this out to the ever-so-helpful GR representative who emailed me. They didn't clarify, just said nudity is not allowed.

I pointed out that this isn't clearly in TOS and didn't get a response. I also pointed out that there are many reviews out there with images that are more "pornographic" than the ones I had posted UNDER SPOILER TAGS in the one review that was flagged.

I got what felt like an automated response about following TOS; it was like talking to an automon. They must know they have a problem, but they're not willing to fix it, and they're not willing to put money into reprogramming their site so that users can control what shows up on their feed.

Adrianamae, Marco's fan wrote: "And that's why I think Marco's flagging was personal to the person that did the flagging - it's a way to get rid of reviews an author and their fans don't like. "

And sadly I don't think we're far off. You piss someone off, and that person can easily get your account deleted since here you are guilty and can't be proven innocent.

Adrianamae, Marco's fan wrote: "Jenna wrote: "I don't know, and I can't find it in the Terms of Use at all. The word nudity isn't even mentioned. I've seen the email quoted on here that they send to people who've been flagged, bu..."

Especially the MF ones; those are the worst offenders it seems.

Thread asking GR for clarification on image violations regarding nudity: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} wrote: "Thread asking GR for clarification on image violations regarding nudity: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."

Very interesting discussion. You could post this example.

Here is a book cover on GR that is clearly allowed:



Here is an image from a review of mine that was flagged; the image was IN SPOILERS so it did NOT appear in anyone's feed unless they specifically clicked on the spoiler which was proceeded with a warning about sexual content:

(view spoiler)[

(hide spoiler)]

As you can see the image in spoilers does NOT have nudity. It has IMPLIED sexual contact between two men, making me think my review was flagged by a an overzealous fanatic responding to personal, subjective moral/religious "rules" and clicking on spoilers they were warned not to click on just so they can play morality police and go running to the the over-reactive, Stasi-like GR "customer service" team.

Yet the cover has female nudity (you can clearly see the outline and side of the breast on the woman, and more), and it's still around.

Technically both images (the cover and yours) violate their terms as specified in the thread linked above. The cover because she is obviously topless and yours because it's a sex act (even if underwear is covering the cock, it's still a sex act). The issue I think is what do they do when book covers violate these terms and how is it fair to allow one and not the other?

I think I may have nose-sprayed my coke all over my keyboard when clicking open your spoiler, Dani. :D

Technically it has neither nudity nor sexual contact, no..

The hypocrisy is worrisome.

It's so unnecessary for GR to be so vague and let the situation spin out of control. But this is how they have always operated. Such a stark contrast with Leafmarks, who were quick to come with an excellent solution that'll allow for all camps to co-exist happily (from Jacquie):

"We'll be adding the ability to set a Discussion Group as 18 and over or "mature". We will also introduce the ability, like spoilers, to set a review as mature. Also spoilers, you can use < s p o i l e r > < / s p o i l e r > around content, and we're introducing < m a t u r e > < / m a t u r e > in which the review, gif, or whatever you want will collapsed into a link "[VIEW MATURE CONTENT]" that you click on. No set rules will be written around this, but it would be done at your discretion, like spoilers are."

Snort! Okay, compared to what dear ol' GR has to offer, your ball licking pic is tame.:)

I've only posted two questionable pictures, and I say questionable pictures, the whole time I've been here and BOTH were flagged and I got nastygrams for them.

They depicted nude figures, but there was no nudity since it was a side image and frontal and rear bits were not displayed. At some point all this silly will drive me away and I'll find something new to do with my time.

~~Dani ♥ semi-colons~~ wrote: "Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} wrote: "Thread asking GR for clarification on image violations regarding nudity: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...-..."









Maybe Goodreads needs to figure out how to put book covers behind spoiler tags. And who will get to decide what is allowed and where the line is drawn?

Vivian wrote: "I've only posted two questionable pictures, and I say questionable pictures, the whole time I've been here and BOTH were flagged and I got nastygrams for them.

They depicted nude figures, but the..."

Both times you were flagged? Gah, I had no idea it was that bad. Considering how much effort and begging it takes to let them take down a batch of sock puppets!

Debbie ♪ ♫ ‼ ♫ ♪ wrote: "~~Dani ♥ semi-colons~~ wrote: "Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} wrote: "Thread asking GR for clarification on image violations regarding nudity: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/......"

These are getting better and better... should we come up with a prize for the one who finds the first beaver shot cover? >:D

I got flagged for a picture of a guy in assless chaps once, and a picture of a group of guys on the beach, they were naked, but standing in a way that had all the bits covered. I don't like the "if they LOOK nude it's not ok" rule. Any guy shown from the waist up, shirtless could be nude, or he could be wearing jeans or boxers.

Maybe the guy shown from the side is wearing a cock sock or a thong? Does it really matter, so long as you can't see the cock?

Maybe the real problem is that there's no way to flag a book cover. The flaggers just need more options!! ;)

Free the cock!