Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: Another funny thread about nudity

Casette opened this issue on Jan 20, 2007 · 433 posts


mitchman posted Sat, 27 January 2007 at 8:09 AM

(From Fictional story above):

Quote - Perhaps simply one single complaint. For example (invented story): PayPal's manager, a 60 years old man, takes his laptop and surfs the web taking a view of some sites where he have his bank online. Suddenly, while he's visiting Rosity he finds a thumbnail with a huge boob in the middle. Inmediately, he takes his cell and says: 'Pete, please, send to Renderosity administration the usual nudity email, second version' 

And a Rosity administrator glups his coffee reading an email like: 'Dear Renderosity Administration: we're sad to tell you we comprobed your site and we're still founding nudity without warnings, so a software like CyberNanny couldn't detect it and OUR CLIENTS' KIDS would watch forbidden content. This is the second warning we send you requesting you need to extreme cautions because PayPal only offer its services to 'family friendly' sites. We warn you if we find again another example of carelessness we'll inmediately paralize our account with you. We hope next time blahblahblahblah...'

Fiction. Only a fiction... or not?

Ah, I hadn't thought of that angle... sigh... follow the money. That would be a real motive wouldn't it? After all, as has been said it's not the freedom or rights or any change of actual content that is driving this change. They (administrators of the site) have determined it is about tastefulness and professional appearance. The thumbnail is now supposed to reflect not what the image is about (despite what the TOS actually says, otherwise ALL thumbs would be merely down-sized versions of the whole) but whether or not those who have CHOSEN to view violence and nudity must now not see what they are looking for until they actually spend the time and bandwidth to download to their browser's cache the actual larger image... Oh wait, that will actually cost more money, won't it? Unless the motive is to dissuade folks from quite so many clicks on images of questionable content. Hmmm... Perhaps if we have to choose what to view more wisely...? This could get very convoluted in a hurry...