Suggestion: No hotlinked porn pics

[JayDee]

I suggest a rule that non-written porn content (drawings/photos etc) only has a URL posted with a description of content for users to decide if they want to view it. Reason being that while America has that freedom of expresson thing, a lot of the drawn porn stuff is illegal elsewhere, such as in my jurisdiction. When you click into a thread and the pictures are right there it’s too late to not have it on your hard drive and ISP record. There doesn’t seem to be any need to hotlink it, as those who want to share and view the pictures would still be able to do so.

It’s a suggestion anyway.

[Desiderius Price]

Petition for universal freedom of expression?  While I wish it was a bit stronger in America (corporations/bullying/NDAs, etc, loopholes), it’s still pretty damn strong and should be a minimum, IMO. 

That said, yeah, some people might feel confident accessing this website from work, on a text-only level, but pictures can change the dynamic.

[BronxWench]

I completely agree, as far as the forum goes. The archive doesn’t allow for embedded pictures, which is a relief. Truly.

[JayDee]

Generally positive reception to the suggestion then! Anybody else agree or want to disagree?

[Desiderius Price]

10 hours ago, JayDee said:

Generally positive reception to the suggestion then! Anybody else agree or want to disagree?

So, when are you moving to a better area?     Sigh, I do wish free expression were universal; and of course, I writing a dystopian society where it’s shifted in the wrong direction.

[pippychick]

Since I’m in the same boat as you, JayDee, I completely agree.

*sighs*

I just know I’m on a list somewhere. But then, we probably all are.

[Desiderius Price]

1 hour ago, pippychick said:

Since I’m in the same boat as you, JayDee, I completely agree.

*sighs*

I just know I’m on a list somewhere. But then, we probably all are.

If it were my dystopia (that I’m writing to), I’d be short listed for “natural selection”.

[Melrick]

I believe actions are what count, not thoughts, but governments seem to think differently.  And I agree with the original suggestion.

[Desiderius Price]

2 hours ago, Melrick said:

I believe actions are what count, not thoughts, but governments seem to think differently.  And I agree with the original suggestion.

My works are effectively a commentary on that.

[WillowDarkling]

So, Melrick, how shall we implement this? You’ll need to add it into the forum rules, I guess, and since I am the most computer-illiterate, this means that we will no longer allow pictures in the posts themselves, but only links to pictures hosted offsite, and posters must put descriptions of the pictures before the links? 

[Melrick]

Sounds good to me.  I can’t see many people abiding by it, though, to be honest.  You know how people are; we only have rules because we like to bully people, apparently.

[Desiderius Price]

Maybe not a full stop type of thing, just for those pictures that justify one of our story codes?  Or at least, that’s where you could enforce it?  But yeah, this can definitely become one of those messy/annoying rules if we’re not careful.

 

[WillowDarkling]

Which is why I will not start enforcing anything, until we (the staff) have decided on exactly what we’ll allow and what not. 

[JayDee]

49 minutes ago, Desiderius Price said:

Maybe not a full stop type of thing, just for those pictures that justify one of our story codes?  Or at least, that’s where you could enforce it?  But yeah, this can definitely become one of those messy/annoying rules if we’re not careful.

 

Eh, with URLs still there nobody would actually miss out on pictures they want to see. Just an extra click per picture. I’d favor a stricter content rule on that basis because there’s very few situations on a fic forum where a picture literally needs to be embedded right there, and because the whole reason for suggesting it is the stricter content rules applied in my jurisdication :(.

As for enforcement, editing a post to remove image embedding tags ought to do it – more work I know, sadly – or removing ability to embed pictures if a user keeps posting embedded porn I guess. No doubt this is the kind’ve thing that gets thrashed out in the private admin/mod forums…

...and off topic, I just had a flash back to the mystery room subforum. Needed a pass card from the old forum shop to get a password. I remember the password being strumpet at one point. Think all the old threads from there got moved to aimless babble when it shut (Yep – Here was one )

[Desiderius Price]

3 minutes ago, JayDee said:

Eh, with URLs still there nobody would actually miss out on pictures they want to see. Just an extra click per picture. I’d favor a stricter content rule on that basis because there’s very few situations on a fic forum where a picture literally needs to be embedded right there, and because the whole reason for suggesting it is the stricter content rules applied in my jurisdication :(.

As for enforcement, editing a post to remove image embedding tags ought to do it – more work I know, sadly – or removing ability to embed pictures if a user keeps posting embedded porn I guess. No doubt this is the kind’ve thing that gets thrashed out in the private admin/mod forums…

Not sure if this forum software does it, but having it automatically handled by the software would be the *best* solution.  It’d save the image locally and auto-url it as suggested, or even make it a user preference, so that those of us in better jurisdictions wouldn’t see the change, but those in more stringent ones would.  Just ideas, because I’m guessing this rule change is going to add to the enforcement work load, especially in the beginning.

[BronxWench]

Honestly, if we could remove the auto-embed option for the forum, that would do the trick. If I want to see something, I don’t mind the extra click, honestly, but I really, REALLY don’t always want something NSFW to pop up on my monitor when I’m checking a thread.

[Desiderius Price]

7 minutes ago, BronxWench said:

Honestly, if we could remove the auto-embed option for the forum, that would do the trick. If I want to see something, I don’t mind the extra click, honestly, but I really, REALLY don’t always want something NSFW to pop up on my monitor when I’m checking a thread.

We probably shouldn’t be checking AFF from work… but that’s a debate for another time.  I usually check via the activity feed, yeah, NSFW pictures can come through at the wrong time.  A list of decent image sharing websites (free) might be in order too, just to help people with that bit.

[BronxWench]

54 minutes ago, Desiderius Price said:

We probably shouldn’t be checking AFF from work… but that’s a debate for another time.  I usually check via the activity feed, yeah, NSFW pictures can come through at the wrong time.  A list of decent image sharing websites (free) might be in order too, just to help people with that bit.

Actually, I don’t want most NSFW images to pop up for me at home, which is where I do the bulk of my work. I shouldn’t have to close my browser window whenever the bell rings.

The other consideration is how child pornography is defined here in the US, which is visual. Pictures of under-18 characters in flagrante delicto is actually illegal here. Someone may love the idea of Harry and Draco getting it on while still first years at Hogwarts, but photoshops of Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton while they’re still under 18 are an issue for me. I don’t need that on my browser history, thank you ever so much.

[pippychick]

32 minutes ago, BronxWench said:

Actually, I don’t want most NSFW images to pop up for me at home, which is where I do the bulk of my work. I shouldn’t have to close my browser window whenever the bell rings.

The other consideration is how child pornography is defined here in the US, which is visual. Pictures of under-18 characters in flagrante delicto is actually illegal here. Someone may love the idea of Harry and Draco getting it on while still first years at Hogwarts, but photoshops of Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton while they’re still under 18 are an issue for me. I don’t need that on my browser history, thank you ever so much.

That’s kind of the point JayDee is making.

In our respective countries, rules are all different. In my own country, the UK, it’s illegal to view anything that might be considered to cause a danger to life, and so that could include quite a wide range of things, being as it has no concrete definition. Basically, here, you’re on thin ice really with anything concerning BDSM. They really don’t like it. AFAIK they (the government) are asking ISPs to keep records on those who are accessing that kind of material. In a link I posted a while ago, they’re also including sound files in that, so audiobooks and stuff might well fall foul of our law if it describes those kinds of things.

From what I’ve seen, when they want to take someone up to make an example, they won’t care if you had a choice over seeing the image or not, which is why I’m in complete agreement with this idea.

[Desiderius Price]

3 minutes ago, pippychick said:

In our respective countries, rules are all different. In my own country, the UK, it’s illegal to view anything that might be considered to cause a danger to life, and so that could include quite a wide range of things, being as it has no concrete definition.

I humbly submit that politics is a danger to life, as evidence, consider Pennsylvania Avenue….  Therefore, UK ought to block all politics on the web, and then it’s just 450 more steps to go.

[BronxWench]

1 hour ago, Desiderius Price said:

I humbly submit that politics is a danger to life, as evidence, consider Pennsylvania Avenue….  Therefore, UK ought to block all politics on the web, and then it’s just 450 more steps to go.

Well, given that it’s not an option, the Web being as politicized as anything else in this world, I think we need to make a conscious choice in favor of protecting our members. To that end, we need to disallow embedded images on the forum. The archive doesn’t allow for members to even post clickable links within stories, and I’m completely fine with that.

[JayDee]

1 hour ago, Desiderius Price said:

I humbly submit that politics is a danger to life, as evidence, consider Pennsylvania Avenue….  Therefore, UK ought to block all politics on the web, and then it’s just 450 more steps to go.

I don’t… I don’t even… what?

Ok, Really, I’m not and I don’t think anybody else is suggesting porn pics should be blocked here, I’m just saying URLS that folks can click save lot of hassle for folks who don’t want to see it. Just because the porn isn’t embedded anymore doesn’t mean it’s gone or blocked, or something. I’m not going for a “Take your porn from your cold, dead, sticky, calloused, hands” first-amendment challenging moment here, man. Just suggesting a compromise to help out some of us because lately I’ve clicked a few threads (and in one case a profile with animated lets-hope-thats-a-skinny-dwarf porn) that have content that could get quite a few of us in a world of shit in a way that text doesn’t yet manage unless it’s supporting terrorism or something equally unpleasant.

I’ve had to quit other sites completely because of this issue – not in a flouncing way, I just deleted my profiles without comment and moved on, because they were geared heavily towards art and some of the art would probably flag with ISP check lists.. This is a story site and doesn’t need embedded images. URLS work just peachy and politics and all the rest don’t really have any other impact on it.

I feel kind’ve like I am repeating myself or getting a little pissy here so I apologise if this is the case or if I’ve caused any offense with my suggestion.

[Desiderius Price]

4 minutes ago, JayDee said:

I don’t… I don’t even… what?

Sorry, just some hyperbole, rant and frustration about nanny state-ism, “for our own good” that I see going on around the world.  Your concerns ought to be addressed; I didn’t mean to trivialize them.

[JayDee]

Thanks. Guess I got a little ranty myself. So sorry from me too!

[Melrick]

Now that I’ve had a chance to sleep on this, I can see a potential problem with forcing people to use url’s linked to pictures off-site.  What can happen is people deliberately leave a link to what they describe is a particular legitimate picture when in reality it’s to a very, very nasty site, designed to do nasty things to your computer, or even to a website with highly illegal content.  This can, and does, happen elsewhere.  All we need is a pissed off person deciding to leave, but not before leaving a parting gift.  Another problem is that they could be providing a link to a legitimate website with a legitimate picture, but that website later disappears and is replaced by one of those nasty sites previously described.  That’s a problem that’s occurred here at least once.

Oh, and I’m assuming this is what people are talking about, linking to pictures that are hosted off-site?