+

12 Mar 2014 admin In G+ Posts

Comments: 11

  1. Bill Moisuk 12 Mar 2014 Reply

    Can't recommend 500px due to membership policies.

  2. Bill Moisuk 12 Mar 2014 Reply

    Thus, hardly "premier".

  3. Brent Burzycki 12 Mar 2014 Reply

    +Bill Moisuk what type of membership policies? I have never had an issue there…

  4. Bill Moisuk 12 Mar 2014 Reply

    I was banned for "pornography" (undefined) – See if they will let you review my banned port and offer your own opinion. No opportunity for a dialogue or re-review by other staff; just chopped.
    Now they have their big britches on, I see…

  5. Toby Harriman 13 Mar 2014 Reply

    Yup I guess people will keep pointing it out!! Pretty cool though, thanks! I've never had a problem and love 500px. As for Bill with the "Porn" issue, I have heard stories, I guess that just comes with that type of work being online, it will always be a sensitive subject for companies to deal with I guess.

  6. Bill Moisuk 13 Mar 2014 Reply

    I understand the various issues involved; my gripe is that they do not have any definition of "pornography" in their TOS, and have no appeals process or means of having the determination reviewed and dealt with effectively together with the photographer. They just act without recourse or explanation, subject to the whim of one website "bureaucrat".

  7. Brent Burzycki 14 Mar 2014 Reply

    +Bill Moisuk I have not seen the work in question, but I can assume that they want to walk on the side of lets call it "high end nude work" now that said I can honestly say that some of my images on there that have now been there for a few years by many would be considered pornography.

    But we that shoot that type of work be it classy, non classy, "porn" etc all run the risk of resentment and in turn exclusion from any of these services.

    If you read the TOS here for G+ and google in general I technically cannot even put nude, erotic, pornographic images in a private folder on drive or in my G+…

    Technically the same theory at Flickr.. and many others but all have a different take on enforcement.

  8. Bill Moisuk 14 Mar 2014 Reply

    Yes, true. And prefer some over others for they way they handle "enforcement". For example, here, you get an appeal.. I was miscategorized here at first, but got to appeal and had some dummy's opinion reversed. facebook or 500px – you are Gone.

  9. Brent Burzycki 14 Mar 2014 Reply

    +Bill Moisuk the issues with free services go far beyond that but in the end.. they do not need you or I – they have the masses and the masses do not do what we do..

    In turn what we do bothers many in the world.. and should not be shown to most people under 18 – these platforms have become the place for many of those people .. we are then outnumbered again..

    I have actually gone as far as changing what I do and how I post to most if not all social networks.. many will not do that and want to fight the system.. I just got tired of that… it was too much work and honestly it does not help where I need to be with my work and it tends to take away from me what I want to get out of social networks…

    its a triple edged sword in most cases…

  10. Bill Moisuk 14 Mar 2014 Reply

    I understand all, that and agree. But I will still go out of my way to identify sites that have unclear/unfair policies and that terminate members without notice or recourse. Just because it is "their site" doesn't mean they have to get up on their high horse, do whatever they want and be rude and inconsiderate to people. That is the "policy" that some of these sites adopt, consciously or not.

  11. Bill Moisuk 4 Apr 2014 Reply

    Further: Ha! I bet this had a lot to do with it…. 500px bowing and kowtowing to Apple stupidity, and in the process, creating their own rude irrationality:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/tech/mobile/apple-nude-photo-app/

Leave a Comment!

Your email address will not be published.