Maybe I'm just getting old.

Status
Not open for further replies.
gonzo_entertainment said:
It's whether that dancing penis is right there where any unsuspecting person including a small child or an old lady can stumble across it with no warning, no door to consensually pass through.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what exactly is going to happen if a small child or old lady happens to stumble across that video? And how far do you take not allowing something that could potentially cause offense that someone could stumble onto?

EDIT: And what is a "small child" doing surfing Vimeo without their parents/guardians present? Or does your definition of "small child" include older children? And are you going to tell me that a woman who is an "old lady" has never seen a penis before?
 
Chris,
I pretty much agree with everything you have said. I have been a Vimeo member for about 4 years and have become disgusted with some of the recent content. I initially joined Vimeo because I thought it was a appropriate site to direct clients as well as friends and family to view my work. I recently had some folks “follow me” that had nude avatars that showed up in the “likes” section of my video pages. I have since blocked them from viewing my site.

I was at my in laws last week and without logging in pulled up Vimeo to show the family some recent work I did. Low and behold the “featured video” appears on the home page containing nudity. Talk about being embarrassed.

I have since contacted Vimeo to complain but have yet to hear from them. I wish they would do a better job of filtering this type stuff like the now defunct Exposureroom did. If Vimeo wants to host video containing sexual and nonsexual nudity then I think they should at least put it somewhere that you need a password or a DOB to access.

As far as Gary's statement

Gary Huff said:
It is. I prefer not to be catered to as though I am a child incapable of handling content that would normally go above a PG rating. I'm an adult.
Click to expand...

Its not an issue of being able to handle content above a PG rating but that Vimeo was in fact first promoted as kind of PG rated community. By doing so they were not exercising censorship as much as establishing a level of expectation. Throwing the doors wide open for pornographic content isn't how Vimeo was marketed to me. If they have changed their business plan then that is their right and I can pursue other alternatives. But I would rather they just cleaned up their site.
 
Mark Williams said:
Its not an issue of being able to handle content above a PG rating but that Vimeo was in fact first promoted as kind of PG rated community. By doing so they were not exercising censorship as much as establishing a level of expectation. Throwing the doors wide open for pornographic content isn't how Vimeo was marketed to me. If they have changed their business plan then that is their right and I can pursue other alternatives. But I would rather they just cleaned up their site.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I missed that memo... Vimeo has always been promoted to my recollection to be a site were there was more concern over the 'ownership' of the material. When I uploaded a multimedia presentation of an artwork my wife did, which included naked female boobery, I was never 'told' nor was it indicated that such boobery required an 'adult' classification. The music however, required that I send them a copy of my license for said music... For another short film, which had a woman in a nightgown/robe, not a 'sexy' one at that... and had a final scene of a man and a woman lying in bed, man clothed, woman in nightgown, I was not told that would cause some 'family values' breech...

On the other hand the presentation with naked female boobery was 'pulled' from Youtube, and I was given a warning about 'presenting such content'.

I came to the conclusion, that Youtube is far more inclined in practice to follow this idiocy of 'family values in viewing' which rates 'Sistine Chapel' like nakedness the same as 'porn'.

My advice, stated again... is if one wants to use any service 'for free', then one will either have to 1) put up with material being presented that one may object to, 2) find some way to present one's own material through one's one 'site' where all can be controlled... or not use 'free' services, which need to be paid for 'somehow', but pay for a streaming service.

Some of my iPhone Apps are 'free', or if a payment made, the ads go away... on a number I don't pay, and so what if I get an ad for service I don't want... I haven't gotten any viagar or pictures showing the 'benefits' of viagra yet... but should I in the future get such... I'd probably end up paying for the 'no ads' option...
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
My advice, stated again... is if one wants to use any service 'for free', then one will either have to 1) put up with material being presented that one may object to, 2) find some way to present one's own material through one's one 'site' where all can be controlled... or not use 'free' services, which need to be paid for 'somehow', but pay for a streaming service.

Some of my iPhone Apps are 'free', or if a payment made, the ads go away... on a number I don't pay, and so what if I get an ad for service I don't want... I haven't gotten any viagar or pictures showing the 'benefits' of viagra yet... but should I in the future get such... I'd probably end up paying for the 'no ads' option...
Click to expand...

I don't use Vimeo for free. I pay a yearly fee.
 
Mark Williams said:
No, what is your point? Its almost like some of your short quips here and elsewhere are intended just to boost your number of posts.
Click to expand...

First, why does my post count matter in this conversation? Second, why are you concerned with my post count? I just want to know what level of prudishness you ascribed to. You described a situation that involves clips that are only going to originate from the Vimeo Staff Picks channel. I went back to the timeframe indicated and picked what I thought you were referring to.

In a world where certain people consider "Hanes Her Way" commercials to be "pornographic", I wanted to ascertain what level of prudishness you ascribed to.
 
By the way; you can unsubscribe to the Staff Picks feed, so you actually have control over what is presented to you.

Incidentally; people who want to have their company videos hosted by vimeo actually ought to be using the PRO account. Then the community aspect is severed completely.
 
Mark Williams said:
I don't use Vimeo for free. I pay a yearly fee.
Click to expand...

I don't pay a fee. When I look at my 'videos' page, as if I were a 'non-user', just going to a specific vimeo user's video page... The only additional item I see is an ad "Cabin in the Woods" on DVD/BD/iTunes...

There is no 'feed' which the original OP complained about.

When I go to 'my vimeo' page, I see the 'feed' option and about the only risky business I could find was one video, "SUCRE D'ORGE AU CARMEN", which had a couple of girls doing old time burlesque type acts. That is, the closest to 'nudity' were pastie covered nipples on one of the performers.

Perhaps I just joined the wrong group... as I'm only a member of the Panasonic GH-1/2/3, and that with the 'staff picks' were the only clips in my 'feed'... and from the look of it the Panasonic group is rather 'bland'... weddings, test clips and a few examples of narratives... nothing really racy at all.

The 'staff' picks as indicated had only one that might offend some who can't stand seeing women with big feather fans.

The only other title that I saw that could have been remotely filled with salacious naked women imagery was "Lolita Lempicka". Of course one would have to know Lempicka's art work to make a connection to naked women... as it was the central figure was Elle Fanning, and so I was pretty certain there was no prurient material to be had despite the reference to an artist who did paint a number of nudes...
 
Gary Huff said:
What if someone finds nudity at all to be morally reprehensible? A video that, to you, might be incredibly artistic and beautiful, but it has some element of nudity to it. Do you really want to start policing that?

Lots of people decry the fact that Americans are all against nudity and pro-violence, and yet here is a prime example. We're not talking about a video on Vimeo showing someone getting shot in the head, beaten up, or decapitated, though I'm sure you could find plenty of violence on Vimeo. However, what's got you upset is a penis.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this argument. When we see someone getting killed in a movie, we know it's fake. In fact our experience is DRASTICALLY different if we discover that someone really was injured/killed (if you've been to the bowels of the internet, you know what i'm talking about). This is not the case with nudity however. The person up there REALLY is naked. It's not pretend. I think this changes it on a fundamental level.
 
I told you they were human; Mods need to discuss flags and requests behind the scenes, and they need time to evaluate whether or not videos have broken their (nebulous) guidelines. Probably the owner of the offending video would have to be contacted before a decision is to be made (to discuss the artistic merit from his understanding), and then the mods would have to actually wait for him to write a reply.

Sometimes a little patience is required before people fly off the handle; people forget in this instant age of the internet that there are actual human beings behind the scenes making decisions. The video might be offensive to you; but removing the video might be offensive to the freedom of speech people who believe the internet should not be policed or regulated, and might be offensive to the people who actually made the video and might be offensive to those people who actively viewed and liked the video. If that video and user was removed by Vimeo you can be sure there are a bunch of outraged people contacting vimeo right now telling them to bring it back.

Not being offensive can mean having to walk a very tight line between 2 different camps of people these days.
 
It's not about being "offended," at least for me. It's about what's appropriate more than anything.

And what?!?! - "wait for him to reply?" Did you see the video? That video had one pretty distinct purpose and "artistic merit" shouldn't in any way figure into any decision to at the very least temporarily remove it from public view - like now.
 
I didn't see the video; I would have no interest in it.

But one persons idea of art is another persons idea of crap. Everyone deserves their opinion I guess.

But I agree; there ought to be maybe some Ratings procedure for videos that could be deemed offensive by some people; based upon existing guidelines for violence, sex, nudity. It wouldn't hurt I guess, even if its just a text warning on the videos title page. That way people have the option not to press play and be offended.
 
Chris Santucci said:
It's not about being "offended," at least for me. It's about what's appropriate more than anything.
Click to expand...

But what do you mean by "appropriate" and by whose standard of appropriate? I know people who would be greatly offended by a gay wedding video being hosted on Vimeo (and find it highly inappropriate), along with spouting the same kinds of nonsense that was put forth on this thread (that it would do some kind of imaginary harm to small children and old ladies...I guess old men deserve no protection?). You might not find it offensive or inappropriate, but someone else might, so why do you get to say that your views are valid while someone else's are not? Frankly, if a potential client came to me upset because they happened to see a gay wedding video as a Staff Pick (a far more likely scenario than them finding some douchebag's exhibitionist video), I would tell them to get over themselves and if it continued to be a problem, I wouldn't want them as a client. But to say one is more of a valid reason to get upset over another is missing the forest for the trees.
 
Chris Santucci said:
It's not about being "offended," at least for me. It's about what's appropriate more than anything.

And what?!?! - "wait for him to reply?" Did you see the video? That video had one pretty distinct purpose and "artistic merit" shouldn't in any way figure into any decision to at the very least temporarily remove it from public view - like now.
Click to expand...


And what is your definition of appropriate?
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
I'm sorry, what exactly is going to happen if a small child or old lady happens to stumble across that video? And how far do you take not allowing something that could potentially cause offense that someone could stumble onto?

EDIT: And what is a "small child" doing surfing Vimeo without their parents/guardians present? Or does your definition of "small child" include older children? And are you going to tell me that a woman who is an "old lady" has never seen a penis before?
Click to expand...

Well, are we going to live in a civilized society where we respect each other or are we going to live in the jungle.... Fundamentally that's the question. It's content that SOME people might find offensive. You put it behind a warning door out of RESPECT for them and their beliefs, morals, whatever. If you want to get respect you have to give respect.

Why it would offend them, how it would offend them, should it offend them... are fundamentally totally irrelevant to the question. All that matters is that it does or might offend them. They have a right to choose whether to be exposed to it or not, not to have it dropped in their lap with no warning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top