Oh, glad that you admit there's no need to chalk it up to "political favoritism", whatever the hell that means.
It's a hideous image, graphical violence done to Obama's face, simultaneously scarring and disfiguring him in Photoshop and making a mocking commentary on his race by putting him in Joker whiteface.
What does this have to do with his politics? Tell me. This image has been brandished at Town Halls with the word "Socialist" underneath it. Please explain that to me. Because it makes no fucking sense. The Joker is a socialist?
Boo hoo for you. Flickr deleted links to a godawful, degrading, yes racist picture some 20 year old Palestinian with no social skills spent 5 hours, defacing Obama's image. What's your problem with this? You can't get enough of this brilliant satire? It's artistic expression to you? It's a really cool picture to you?
Satire ought to have a point. Obama is the Joker? I seriously don't get it- no one does. It makes no sense, is not funny, and ultimately is some kid degrading Obama's face in a dehumanizing way. That right wing sites adopted as some sort of wit. That you're now defending.
Oh, is that censorship?
Tell us what's so fucking great about this nasty piece of work. One damned redeeming point about it.
@Baroness: I'd usually say that something like this should stay up to avoid the chilling effect of censorship, but it’s so hateful that it deserves the treatment it got.
If it were a piece of graf on the street, it would have been tagged over in hours.
@Baroness: Nothing's great about it. It's vile and hateful. It should still be allowed to anyone who wants a copy, if for no other reason than that we'll know who they are. The first amendment protects the Klan, Stormfront.com, Fred Phelps and Benny Hinn the same way it protects Robert Mapplethorpe and Karen Finley. There's no reasonable way this image can be considered incitement to violence or child pornography, so it falls under the same protections. Is that a wonderful thing? Actually, I think it is.
Score -1 for the cloud. *No* warning before deletion? The weakest link [or in this case minds] in this are at Yahoo and the dickweed founder of Flickr.
Another rule of the cloud according to Yahoo: 'There is no backup.'
Think about that the next time you put something there.
Regardless of who’s the more sympathetic character in this mess, deleting the photos from a Pro account without warning is a bad business decision. What I learned from this is that Yahoo! cannot be trusted with data.
@GiovanniGautham: Freedom of speech applies to the government, not private corporations hosting your photos. That was true when Bush was in office and it's just as true now.
This is bad - not just for Flickr, but for all other services (like Google, really) that encourage users to upload their irreplaceable data on "secure" central servers. If Flickr can repossess my work product - and, say, Google can repossess all my Google Docs - that undermines the "cloud computing" gospel they've been preaching for the past couple of years. Yeah, there are drawbacks to keeping my data on my hard drive, but at least I don't lose access to it just because I may act like a "dick."
If Flick deleted 1,200 of my pictures (and that's about how many I have on there) with no warning and no way to get them back, for posting all of 20 comments with a mild political message, I wouldn't want to be called "a dick," "retarded" and "petty" by the company founder, who openly admits he has no idea what's going on and no specific beef with the person he's calling names.
But as a pure observer in this case the reflexive hostility is fascinating to me. It's like, "oh, another idiot customer worked up about his stupid photos he stupidly uploaded to us and now he's all upset we deleted them. What a waste of time for everyone who has to deal with this." Not sure if everyone at the company is that burned out or just Butterfield.
Now if he'd said, "that was a dick move commenting on Heather's photo," whole other story.
@Ryan Tate: If the only place in the world you store your photos is on Flickr, then you may not be a dick, but you are an idiot.
Flickr has a bulk photo upload tool. If they delete your account, you make a new one and re-upload those 1200 photos. It would take at most an hour, 59.5 minutes of which is just you writing snarky Gawker comments while your computer uploads in the background.
I just don't get people who whine about their stuff being deleted from web sites owned by other people. If you want your stuff backed up, either do it yourself or get your own damn web site where you're paying for someone else to do it for you. Flickr's a free web site (he didn't have a pro account), and you have basically no protection on it. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool, if not a dick.
@Ryan Tate: and btw, note I am using the royal "you" in my comment, not talking about you specifically. Just using your comment as a jumping off point.
@badasscat: We know which you you're talking about. Problem is, sure you can upload all those pics, but what about the metadata? keywords, Geocache, etc?
Of course, if you're on a Mac using iPhoto or another asset manager that's moot. But who does that?
Butterfield's a transparent dick by treating the kid like he's a troll. Flickr's mods blanched at the idea of the White House shutting down its prestigious Flickr stream. A "dick" used the forum to dissent. If it was 10 comments in a row, it would be spammy, true, but fuck them, and especially fuck Butterfield's "go for a bike ride, don't worry about torture!"
@Pragmatic: But that's kind of the point: He called him a "dick," "retarded" and "petty" while freely admitting he had no clue what was going on -- which is that Flickr nuked 1,200 pictures with zero warning.
Butterfield sounds like the dick in this case. Would it have been so hard for him to say I don't work there anymore and leave it at that? Why the personal attack?
His reply is pretty restrained, given he's being addressed as "Stew" and "old sport" by a total stranger who apparently has some rather severe boundary issues.
@Pragmatic: Yeah... I don't know. I think if someone where to call me an "'ol sport" and lead in with "Well, looks like we have an extremely delicate situation going on here," I'm gunna go ahead and say his comments were intuitive, well thought out, and appropriately times.
And in re to Shepherd Johnson: Well it looks like we just may have a total dick-situation going on here.
08/20/09
Was that convincing? Would it help if I stood in front of a billowing American flag?
08/19/09
It's a hideous image, graphical violence done to Obama's face, simultaneously scarring and disfiguring him in Photoshop and making a mocking commentary on his race by putting him in Joker whiteface.
What does this have to do with his politics? Tell me. This image has been brandished at Town Halls with the word "Socialist" underneath it. Please explain that to me. Because it makes no fucking sense. The Joker is a socialist?
Boo hoo for you. Flickr deleted links to a godawful, degrading, yes racist picture some 20 year old Palestinian with no social skills spent 5 hours, defacing Obama's image. What's your problem with this? You can't get enough of this brilliant satire? It's artistic expression to you? It's a really cool picture to you?
Satire ought to have a point. Obama is the Joker? I seriously don't get it- no one does. It makes no sense, is not funny, and ultimately is some kid degrading Obama's face in a dehumanizing way. That right wing sites adopted as some sort of wit. That you're now defending.
Oh, is that censorship?
Tell us what's so fucking great about this nasty piece of work. One damned redeeming point about it.
08/19/09
If it were a piece of graf on the street, it would have been tagged over in hours.
08/20/09
06/14/09
This is some politically motivated BS. It's painfully obvious.
06/12/09
Another rule of the cloud according to Yahoo: 'There is no backup.'
Think about that the next time you put something there.
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
But as a pure observer in this case the reflexive hostility is fascinating to me. It's like, "oh, another idiot customer worked up about his stupid photos he stupidly uploaded to us and now he's all upset we deleted them. What a waste of time for everyone who has to deal with this." Not sure if everyone at the company is that burned out or just Butterfield.
Now if he'd said, "that was a dick move commenting on Heather's photo," whole other story.
06/12/09
Flickr has a bulk photo upload tool. If they delete your account, you make a new one and re-upload those 1200 photos. It would take at most an hour, 59.5 minutes of which is just you writing snarky Gawker comments while your computer uploads in the background.
I just don't get people who whine about their stuff being deleted from web sites owned by other people. If you want your stuff backed up, either do it yourself or get your own damn web site where you're paying for someone else to do it for you. Flickr's a free web site (he didn't have a pro account), and you have basically no protection on it. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool, if not a dick.
06/12/09
06/12/09
Of course, if you're on a Mac using iPhoto or another asset manager that's moot. But who does that?
06/12/09
-t
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
His reply is pretty restrained, given he's being addressed as "Stew" and "old sport" by a total stranger who apparently has some rather severe boundary issues.
06/12/09
06/12/09
And in re to Shepherd Johnson: Well it looks like we just may have a total dick-situation going on here.
06/12/09
06/12/09