So Bearflag70, are you saying that in the interests of consistency we should remove the link to ratemypoo?
seems the people at ratemypoo have a very high interest in consistency.
Certainly this picture must be allowable, that it may serve as a visual metaphor for this thread.
I never like to see a beaver done in by vicious wood
Good one SK, it reminds me of that Far Side “Nature Scenes We Never See” with the deer catching his antlers on the tree branch.
No. I said,
There is noting in that statement to suggest that SDMB should do anything with a link to www.ratemypoo.com. It’s merely descriptive of SDMB’s duty (or lack thereof).
I never gave an opinion on what SDMB should do.
OK Bearflag70 I thought you were trying to engage in a constructive discussion of which links should be allowed at the SDMB. If you’re just bitching and moaning that’s OK too, it’s one of the purposes of this forum. If you’re doing something else then I guess I don’t understand what but that would also be OK. In short, you’re OK, I’m OK, we’re all OK and I love you, man! (planting a big wet one on Bearflag70’s lips)
And so, boys and girls, the tree fell in the forest, and nobody heard the beaver squeak.
Jeepers, get a room you guys!
Zette
I didn’t see the pictures
Because I’m curious and I want to understand why the links have been removed
Well…There are probably more horrific pictures…Pictures depicting humans, for instance. Yes, I know that some people can’t handle that. Nevertheless, it seems to me that such people wouldn’t click on the link.
That would be really an extreme case. Also, people who know they could react in such a way wouldn’t click on the link. For instance, if someone has an extreme phobia of spiders, there’s no way to convince him to look at a picture of spiders.
Well…Indeed, it probably wasn’t necessary to see the images. However, I also asked a more general question in my fireworks example. What if the link is actually relevant and useful? Would it be deleted also?
Well…then perhpas it’s a cultural issue, or I’m dense, or it’s just me. But I really didn’t understand the point
You’re wrong. I wasn’t getting anywhere. I wondered why the link had been removed. My curiosity was also prompted by the fact that the mod who removed the link stated in a later post that she alrdeady had to face some problems following the posting of a similar link, or something to that effect… I wanted to know what kind of problems the mods could have.
As for people being protected from themselves : if there’s a real, physical danger, it makes sense. But protecting people because they would be offensed by a picture they insisted to see after being warned about its content make few sense. In this instance, indeed, I don’t think people should be protected from themselves. It’s not like they’re going to die.
Well…it doesn’t seem to me that anybody has a duty to try to protect everybody else from everything which could “disturb or upset” them.
I suppose that my question would be the following : if these links are removed, it’s probably because people complain or could complain. If so, what are they complaining about : my child saw the picture and is disturbed, you should have removed the link? Such horrific pictures shoudln’t even exist, you’re an insensitive monster if you allow them to appear on your site? You’re advocating torturing animals by not removing the link, I’m not going to buy your paper anymore? I fainted when I saw the picture, and I’m going to sue you? What?
Yes, that’s roughly what I assumed. I’m accustomed to see/read people complaining about pornography, so it wouldn’t have surprised me in any way. I’m possibly out of touch.
I thought so. For instance, watching the news at prime time, occasionnally, one will see extremely disturbing footages (and depicting humans, not animals). They make sure to warn sentitive people that they probably shouldn’t watch, of course, but nevertheless broadcast the footage (of course, pornography is rarely informative, and there’s few reason I can think of to broadcast it during the news, so I can’t make a comparison). If human bodies, sometimes of people who died in an awful way, can be broadcasted on TV at prime time with some war report, I indeed don’t really understand why it is different on an internet site.
Also, there’s the usual issue of movies, etc…depicting violence with complacency without anybody complaining while there are outcries when there’s nudity (at least in the US, I understand). So, yes. I assumed that people usually complain about pornogrphy but don’t really feel concerned about violence.
No, I didn’t.
Just because the majority of American culture seems to accept violence but eschew pornography does not mean that this website is obliged to leave up links to disgusting, violent images. There’s a thing called “good taste,” and, while many of the threads here may fall on the other side of it, those pictures - be they overtly sexual or horrifically gruesome - are so far beyond the line that there is no need for them to be posted here.
And on the local news you often see “news items” concerning strippers/prostitutes with bare breasts being “pixelled” out.
On the other hand, if you visit a newstand at your local bookstore, you will probably see many news magazines talking about sex and with pictures of nude or near-nude people, but magazines devoted to torture are noticeably non-existent. I don’t think the general view in society is as simple as “sex is bad, violence is good.”
::shudder::
It’s not in my nature to bitch and moan…
I was actually on the side of the Mods here. I initially came in here just to see if I could post a link to www.ratemypoo.com without getting bounced from SDMB. I learned that I can.
See?
Then, I gave a description of the plenary power of the Mods to do whatever the hell they want regarding links. The rules regarding the acceptable substance of links is totally subjective, and the Mods have absolute power to enforce the rules any way they see fit.
So, to come in here and start questioning why LINK A is bad while LINK B is ok is good to ask, but ultimetely moot. The Mods don’t have to answer to anybody. They don’t have to justify their decisions. Once the Mods have ruled, there is no appeal. The Mods are not bound by such things as due process, equal protection, or stare decisis. They can be as arbitrary as they want.
Anyway, if the Mods are willing to entertain such a discussion, then perhaps I should think about what the standard of “decency” should be.
On the one hand, the fundamental premise of SDMB is to stamp out ignorance. On the other hand, no right is absolute, and SDMB has an interest in maintaining its public image and marketability via creating and enforcing some standard of decency.
Where do you draw the line? How? Hell, the great minds on the SCOTUS can’t even agree on this with respect to First Amendment case law.
One solution would be to ban all links. Another would be to allow all links allowed by law.
Short of that, you’re left with Mods enforcing an arbitrary standard in an attempt to balance conflicting values. If Dopers don’t like the way the balance is struck, they will leave. Dopers keep friction on the “slippery slope”, especially with threads like this.
I expect this thread is and will continue to be useless to define a standard of decency, but it is useful in that it keeps the Mods in check as to what is “reasonable” to censor.
BTW, if SDMB was a public entity, I would be up in arms about censorship!
Well…Thanks for your responses. I’m going to sum up my question :
Are such links deleted because mods thinks they’re bad taste and unecessary, or because they receive many complaints when such a link is posted on the boards? In the second case, what kind of complaints (I mean based on what) do you receive, if I may ask?
Usually the former - because we think they’re bad taste and unnecessary.
What kind of complaints do we receive? E-mails of the type “Poser X linked to a gross picture in thread Y of forum Z, is that really the kind of thing that belongs at the SDMB?”
If you want to give it some serious thought and present an argument, I’ll be glad to read it. Not that I will necessarily agree with you.
That’s why I was trying to pin down your opinion. Would you remove a link to a picture of a tortured animal? What do you think belongs at the SDMB? I’m always interested to get the point of view of our users.
Well if you’re bored this week-end you can go to your local high school and demand that they carry Hustler magazine in their library.