Flickr Founder Calls Nuked User 'A Dick'

Note: The thread title is directly quoted from the title of cited article

First allow me to provide a little background to this story.



Yahoo Nukes Man's Photos Over Obama Comments

The bill Mr. Johnson was referring to is:

Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law



Let that sink in for a second ... we will come back to it later.

Flickr's public response in this matter is as follows:



But the story doesn't end there ...

Johnson, obviously distraught at the flagrant censorship communicated with Flickr's (owned by Yahoo) customer service and was offered placation via a $25 gift card.

That's when he decider to contact Flickr's founder Stuart Butterfield.

Here's their communication:



Flickr Founder Calls Nuked User 'A Dick'

Oh dear ...

Now I know what some of you are going to say. Flickr/Yahoo is a private company and they should be allowed to control their content. Except that Flickr has yet to tell M.r. Johnson what specific aspect of their terms and condition he has breached.



They're even contending that they "lost" his images even though they were stored in his premium account.

This is as blatant as censorship gets folks, and to make matters worse, as stated above, there is a bill considered to make all this nice and neat.

Consider the implications ...

Consider them good.

Also I urge you to take the time to read the following important related article:

Flickr: Setting limits for online speech

The information in this post and related links provided via cryptome.org

[edit on 15 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Maybe imposing a suspension of his account for further investigation would have been a lot more appropriate then completely closing his entire account.

P.S - Sorry SDog, I was going to "U2U" you back but the function is disabled until I have atleast 20 posts...

woof woof, Scooby

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Scooby Doo]

I'd like to see documentation of all his conversations with that company and also would like to know if he has a past history with them. The way that message was worded sounds like he is a familiar face.

Ok, this is pretty messed up.

Banning him for his comments is one thing, and completely within their right.

However, he paid for his membership, and as a result of his banning lost over a thousand of his photos? They need to make those images available to him, to download or otherwise, immediately!

I am an artist, as well as an amateur photographer. Personally, I back up and store my scans and photographs as well as hosting them online. However, if my online provider 'lost' all of my works, I would be infuriated! Especially if that was my only backup. Photographs are intellectual property, and Flickr owes it to this man to give him access to his works.

The real lesson here is not to depend on websites like Flickr or Photobucket to host your works, and to be certain to have suitable backups of everything you shoot, especially if you treasure your creations.


(off topic) Schrodinger I love your avatar!

The Flickr founder he emailed replied back stating he doesn't even work for them anymore and hasn't for a year. The e-mail he sent IMO is awesome and was probably what needed to be said. Just like on ATS, don't piss off the staff and don't be a dick to members and your time will go by without a problem.

I forgot though that I know live in the bizarro world were people can do what ever they want and then feel wronged when they have a consequence they don't like. People think freedom of speech means they can say what they want, they forget that it doesn't mean the big guy at the end of the bar may wont give you a fat lip for it.

Why is this news?

reply to post by whoshotJR

---

I urge you to reread the OP, especially the links referring to the proposed legislation and the Business Week article.

You might also want to consider backing off from the trees just a tad. There's a pretty forest right behind them.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

---

The legislation is mutually exclusive to the issue at hand IMO so I didn't comment on it. The thread is also misleading because it tries to convey the founder as the speaker for the company when he no longer works there.

Nice effort put into presentation though and I will star and flag to get more views. I'm sure most will disagree with my view so maybe I can draw a few more in to backup your view point with the flag.

In no way is this a reflection of my view on censorship, rather it is my view on entering into a legal contract which most likely implies the potential for censorship.

The guy could be a dick.

I've read enough of those 'user agreements' to suspect this one said much the same that they all do. In effect that accounts may be terminated without notice and he is entitled to nothing. I didn't see a link to the flickr user agreement, so I'm guessing, but it would be pretty standard. And after the recent judgment in favor of such online agreements being perfectly legal well...

The moral of the story is be careful what you agree to.

Edited to add: As for the suppression of detainee photos, I'm not sure why anyone but a court would need to see them anyway, and like that was ever going to happen. Sorry, but I'm neither shocked nor appalled. The US government has been suppressing information and jailing 'dissenters' without trial during 'wartime' since likely as far back as the Revolutionary War, but most certainly the Civil War so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised.

[edit on 15/6/09 by TravelerintheDark]

That piece of information is available to anyone reads the cited links. I'm not quite sure how that is misleading.

So does he get a refund? How can you ban someone if they pay?

Easy, you put into the agreement exactly what a member can expect from the company as long as they abide by certain regulations, and it's included what will happen if you violate said regulations.
The T&C on sites is as binding a contract as you would sign on paper.

It would do people well to stop using Private company's that have a political agenda .

Also on there sign up agreements , all that I have read make them libel for nothing and they can take your money and have to do nothing. Some even go as far to put in that you can not take them to court .

It's misleading because it makes it sound like Flikr the company called the kid a dick and then shut him off. Sure it's clarified by reading through the article but its just a sensational title to grab readers yet really has no baring on the facts of the story. Who cares if an ex employee called somebody a dick.

Hem, an ex employee?

Now who's being misleading?

He didn't handle it correctly and got responded to on the same level. OH WELL! Handle yourself proffessionaly and don't refer to people you want help from as "ole sport", write to the wrong people or instead of explaining your situation, expect another person to fill them in.
Quite frankly he is a dick.