Are we allowed to link? - DPChallenge Forums

01/21/2006 09:58:47 PM · #1

First of all, I had to strongly consider posting this because I feel I'm going to take a nice old fashioned bashing for it...but because certain links that I have posted to a 'touchy' subject were deleted, I thought I would ask, and get everyones' opinions.

I would also like to add that I am not a racist. I am not prejudice against anyone or anything. I believe that all persons were created equal...all that and everything else aside...

-----

Just curious...are we not allowed to include posts to race-related sites...the topic may not be what a lot of people believe in, but there are quite a few who strongly believe...and I personally feel that deleting such links deprives the majority of this community based on a few people that aren't necessarily living in the same world as the rest of us.

Should we delete links that relate to Christianity or other religions? How about abortion? Adoption? The death penalty? These issues are and always will be a big part of the world that we all live in and share...depriving an open community the ability to post such links becomes a touchy issue -- where is the line drawn? What gets deleted, what doesn't?

That being said, and especially about a 'photographic' community -- issues like those discussed here play a huge part in photojournalism and journalism in every country and every community that every person in the world (and this site) belongs to.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/21/2006 10:05:19 PM · #2

It is a hard question Dave. But I think that site that you mentioned was a little over the line, yeah.

Most your point is valid IMO, except that this wasn't pointing to a pictorial of neo-nazi parades or anything, so I'm not sure where you're going really with the photojournalism angle.

That being said, I'd hate to think that anyone censoring a photo of a Nazi parade, or the Love Parade would really happen here.

photodude

01/21/2006 10:08:53 PM · #3

How about the concept that if you don't like whats on the linked site hit the back button or the big X, or better yet don't click it in the first place. We are all adults and don't need the thought police

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

01/21/2006 10:09:30 PM · #4

dpaull, I think posting a link to a site that discusses racial issues would be ok, however, posting a link to a site that singles out a particular race in a negative manner is not ok. For example, a site discussing race issues, that turned into an Asian bashing session would be considered innapropriate.
Agreed, that everyone has different views, and we like to discuss those views, but when they target a specific person, or group of people in an offending manner, it doesn't belong on DPC.
I think that's what I wanted to say, I'm tired.

Edit to add, that's not an official SC statement, rather my own personal opinion.

Message edited by author 2006-01-21 22:10:44.

fotomann_forever

01/21/2006 10:13:31 PM · #5

Edit: Taking back my comment... seems I did not fully understand the question, nor the context of the question.

Message edited by author 2006-01-21 23:02:02.

01/21/2006 10:26:17 PM · #6

Originally posted by photodude:

How about the concept that if you don't like whats on the linked site hit the back button or the big X, or better yet don't click it in the first place. We are all adults and don't need the thought police

The thread in question was started by a 13-year-old.

It was also in no way clear from David's post what the linked site contained.

~Terry

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

01/21/2006 10:26:30 PM · #7

Originally posted by HBunch:

oh...I can assure you that site didn't 'single out a particular race' -- that site is all about equal opportunity discrimination.

--

fotoman: the story goes like this (although I'm not really sure how relevant this is to this particular discussion)...

someone says that someone else called their photo 'very american'
I said they were probably just racist.
Someone sarcastically said "Strange. I didn't know Americans were considered a race" (or something to that effect)
So I posted a link and said "look around"

On the link, you will find all kinds of racist stuff -- including some that are of a 'new' breed of 'neo nazis' or skinheads that consider Americans a race...I also posted a reference to the dictionary where it said that a 'race' was defined as 'a group of people determined by ... geographic distrubition ' (or something along those lines)...

--

Like I said though, I don't know how that's relevant...I'm just curious why we wouldn't be allowed to post links to sites like that -- I mean in a photographic community -- where some people want to learn as much as they can about as many 'life issues' as possible.

blemt

Nikon D70

01/21/2006 10:27:01 PM · #8

(Not Site Council Opinion)

I think that posting links like that is not in and of its self objectionable. However, I personally would have added in a not kidsafe/work safe notice.

There are people here who's net usage is monitored. A site like that will get attention from administrators. In the link you posted, there was really no hint as to the content. It was a little bit like dropping a landmine in the middle of the conversation.

If the link had gone to a porn site, same thing.

It's more a matter of common courtesy. Give people the option to participate in your discussion WITHOUT having to potentially click through to something that may get them in trouble.

(Site Council Back On)

01/21/2006 10:27:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I'd have to say that your reason for posting the link was just as important as what the link contained. You definitely need to justify WHY you posted the link and give clear details.

David is asking a fair question about our forum moderation policy. I don't believe he needs to justify anything in order to ask them.

~Terry

01/21/2006 10:29:29 PM · #10

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

The thread in question was started by a 13-year-old.

It was also in no way clear from David's post what the linked site contained.

~Terry

I'm not going to beat to death any issue about 13-year olds and the content already on this site or available on the internet or through school or through friends or through parents or how parents can use internet software to not allow certain sites...

So if someone was going to post a link like that, it would be best to make the text something like:

WARNING RACIST SITE DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 OR EASILY OFFENDED BY SUCH ISSUES

...not that any of us have the right to tell anyone under any age what they should or should not be clicking...

anyway, would that be ok?

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/21/2006 10:31:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by photodude:

umm... that post was in direct response to a 13 year old

01/21/2006 10:31:52 PM · #12

Originally posted by blemt:

However, I personally would have added in a not kidsafe/work safe notice.

ok...sounds fair enough then...so that content ok with a flag/notice (in your non-site council opinion, that is)...gotcha.

01/21/2006 10:33:17 PM · #13

Originally posted by wavelength:

umm... that post was in direct response to a 13 year old

Actually, the post was in direct response to a 35 year old in a post started by a 13 year old...don't make it seem like I'm trying to single-handedly corrupt the morals of minors or something.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/21/2006 10:41:12 PM · #14

I didn't say that Dave, and I wasn't trying to twist the situation to make you look bad or worse or anything.

I just think you didn't quite think the whole thing through before you posted it is all. It seems that you eagerness to prove a point was more important than considering what might be appropriate to post in the forum is all. In the end, since you didn't fully explain how that site made your point, it kind of backfired and seemed like you agreed with the ideas on the site.

Just something to consider. In reality, you can link to anything you want, but when you throw out a bomb like that, don't expect it not to explode.

David.C

01/21/2006 10:44:32 PM · #15

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

The thread in question was started by a 13-year-old. ...

~Terry

How is that relevant?

Restricting the experiences of the kid is a matter for the parents to decide -- and the father know of and approved participation in this adult community. I feel it is simply not our place to censor what the parents have decided not to.

***

That said, I do believe the site linked was relevant to the discussion of the comment without the context of the photo it is about -- even if he did create the relevance by bringing the racism angle into the discussion.

David

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/21/2006 10:55:05 PM · #16

Originally posted by dpaull:

...not that any of us have the right to tell anyone under any age what they should or should not be clicking...

Excuse me? Do not tell me what I will or will not allow my child to experience. It is not your right to tell me how to parent my child. If I do not want him seeing the crap that people like you feel should be pushed down all our throats that is my choice. If you decide to go around my parenting decision than you will deal with me. That is YOUR choice.

This will be my last comment on this issue.

Edited to add... Sorry Terry, I get defensive when someone tells me how their going to raise my child...

Message edited by author 2006-01-21 23:08:05.

01/21/2006 11:01:07 PM · #17

Originally posted by dpaull:

In that particular thread, I was a bit leary of the link regardless of warnings, in part because the OP was a 13 year old.

That said, a lot has to do with context. If you read my posts in the Redneck thread from last week, I explained it a bit there as well. Context counts for a lot, and the relevant "official" guideline that we have is that a post should be edited or removed when it "does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise."

As you stated in your post, the dictionary definition made your point. The link you posted was a bit superfluous to the argument. Though it could be argued that the link reinforced your point, the more likely end result was that (whether this was your intent or not) it would end up diverting the thread off-topic, and subsequent posts proved that to be correct.

Had the thread been, for example, a discussion about hate/racist groups, the link may have been appropriate in that case. Even then, a link to highly controversial content should probably be framed with a clear explanation/warning of what the link is, and of what your intent is in posting the link. This way you can avoid any misunderstandings that may divert the thread off its topic, and also provide the reader the opportunity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to view the content in question. Even then, you may wish to ask yourself whether there is another way to make your point that does not involve giving free publicity to hate group web sites.

Speaking personally (and candidly), I bristle at the thought of driving any traffic to hate group web sites, or to providing links to them that help drive them higher in the Google rankings. This is in no small part to the fact that I am high on the list of people that these groups choose to attack.

That said, I understand and take seriously my responsibility to set my personal biases aside when acting in the role of a Site Council member. When in doubt on a borderline case that involves these types of groups, I defer to other members of Site Council to make the call.

In this particular case, though, the nature of the site in question, multiple Report Posts we received, the lack of warning on the link, the age of the original poster, the fact that the point was made clearly even without the link, and (probably most importantly) the evidence that the presence of the link divirted the thread off-topic, taken together, made it clear that the appropriate course of action was to remove the link.

~Terry

01/21/2006 11:05:29 PM · #18

Originally posted by TooCool:

edited out because s/c edited original

You're joking, right? I have no right to tell anyone under any age what to click and what not to click -- it is up to their parent to turn on their software that disables questionable sites...

That being said...don't threaten me dude...on the forums, in private message, nowhere...and that's not a thread -- you're clearly just being rude and I'm not going to put my membership on the line and get banned responding negatively to your trolling tactics...good luck though...oh ... my address, phone number, and everything else you could need to know is on my website, you choose what you do. take it easy.

-----

Apparently you took it as me telling you how to raise your child -- lol -- apparently you think it's ok to threaten people ... heh...you are the man. My intent is not to tell anyone how to raise their child...my intent is to say that I don't have a right to tell anyone under any age to click or not to click anything.

Message edited by author 2006-01-21 23:07:34.

DjFenzl

01/21/2006 11:09:46 PM · #19

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by dpaull:
I'm not going to beat to death any issue about 13-year olds and the content already on this site or available on the internet or through school or through friends or through parents or how parents can use internet software to not allow certain sites...

So if someone was going to post a link like that, it would be best to make the text something like:

WARNING RACIST SITE DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 OR EASILY OFFENDED BY SUCH ISSUES

...not that any of us have the right to tell anyone under any age what they should or should not be clicking...

anyway, would that be ok?

In that particular thread, I was a bit leary of the link regardless of warnings, in part because the OP was a 13 year old.

That said, a lot has to do with context. If you read my posts in the Redneck thread from last week, I explained it a bit there as well. Context counts for a lot, and the relevant "official" guideline that we have is that a post should be edited or removed when it "does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise."

As you stated in your post, the dictionary definition made your point. The link you posted was a bit superfluous to the argument. Though it could be argued that the link reinforced your point, the more likely end result was that (whether this was your intent or not) it would end up diverting the thread off-topic, and subsequent posts proved that to be correct.

Had the thread been, for example, a discussion about hate/racist groups, the link may have been appropriate in that case. Even then, a link to highly controversial content should probably be framed with a clear explanation/warning of what the link is, and of what your intent is in posting the link. This way you can avoid any misunderstandings that may divert the thread off its topic, and also provide the reader the opportunity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to view the content in question. Even then, you may wish to ask yourself whether there is another way to make your point that does not involve giving free publicity to hate group web sites.

Speaking personally (and candidly), I bristle at the thought of driving any traffic to hate group web sites, or to providing links to them that help drive them higher in the Google rankings. This is in no small part to the fact that I am high on the list of people that these groups choose to attack.

That said, I understand and take seriously my responsibility to set my personal biases aside when acting in the role of a Site Council member. When in doubt on a borderline case that involves these types of groups, I defer to other members of Site Council to make the call.

In this particular case, though, the nature of the site in question, multiple Report Posts we received, the lack of warning on the link, the age of the original poster, the fact that the point was made clearly even without the link, and (probably most importantly) the evidence that the presence of the link divirted the thread off-topic, taken together, made it clear that the appropriate course of action was to remove the link.

~Terry

Very well said Terry, I for one greatly appreciate responses like this :)

01/21/2006 11:10:14 PM · #20

Originally posted by TooCool:

Edited to add... Sorry Terry, I get defensive when someone tells me how their going to raise my child...

lol...no one told you how you were going to raise your child...heck, I didn't even know that YOU were going to read this thread, how could I have directed anything at YOU, personally, without saying your name?

01/21/2006 11:23:33 PM · #21

Originally posted by TooCool:

To clarify, I don't think David is talking about showing content to children over the objections of the parents. I believe his position is that parents should monitor and make informed decisions about their child's Internet usage.

To a large extent, I agree with David on that viewpoint. DPChallenge does not endeavor to be a "family" web site, as evidenced by the fact that we allow, for example, nude photography on the site. We do, however, place some limitations on content regardless, for example the limitations on nudity imposed within the Challenge Rules, removal of excessive or gratuitious use of foul or abusive language, and the requirement that all content posted comply with the Terms of Use.

That said, we do reserve (and exercise) the right to make age-appropriateness one of the factors we use in determining whether content is appropriate. That factor weighs a little more heavily when the purpose of the thread is to answer a question asked by a 13 year old.

Another major problem is that the post in question lacked the appropriate context to allow a reader to make an informed decision about whether to click the link, or to allow a parent to make an informed decision as to whether to allow their child to click the link. One would not know they were going to a hate group web site until after they clicked the link. The post lacked both a warning about the potenially offensive/not work safe content, and any explanation that would give the reader some context from which to understand David's purpose in posting it. The first creates an unacceptable risk for some users, the second, to paraphrase wavelength, effectively drops a bomb on the thread and blows it off topic.

Hopefully this explains where we're coming from a bit better.

~Terry

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

01/21/2006 11:59:56 PM · #22

Originally posted by dpaull:

oh...I can assure you that site didn't 'single out a particular race' -- that site is all about equal opportunity discrimination.

Sorry, you started out this thread with a generic question about posting links in forums. I answered with a generic answer. I knew nothing about 'that site', and have not even seen it. My answer was to your original question. This thread seems to have turned into a discussion about a specific link that we removed that I didn't even know about...so...my response was not related to your link at all.