How a Gesture Could Get Your Google+ Profile Picture Yanked

SharkLaser writes "It turns out that Google has started to remove Google+ pictures that have persons giving the middle finger in it. 'Our policy page states, "Your Profile Picture cannot include mature or offensive content." Your profile photo was taken down as a violation of this policy.' Google+ is supposed to be a universal social network and 'identity service,' and to allow sharing like in real life — a public venue for free expressions. Since the middle finger is such culturally-specific issue, will Google+ also start to remove things like showing the palms of your hands to people (considered an insult in Greece), showing the soles of your shoes (insult in the Middle East), and patting someone's head (an insult in Buddhist countries)? A good number of Google+ users have started to change their profile picture to include the middle finger to show support to MG Siegler, who got his profile picture removed by Google."

Comments

Other Offenses

[nman64]

I am offended by all pictures containing mirrors. I demand that all social networks immediately terminate all profiles featuring photographs with mirrors in them! Or displaying their captive animals they call "pets" (how abusive!) Or holding alcohol - don't they have any respect for the alcoholics they're teasing?! Then there are those photos of people grappling others. They call it hugging and try to make it look all chummy, but I can see their unbridled violence! While they're at it, they can get rid of all of those profiles with pictures of people baring their teeth - there are so many of those! There are also many profiles with pictures that are straining to look at - out of focus, poorly lit or colored, or otherwise difficult to look at. It is so very offensive for people to post such pictures. I'm sure if they remove all of these offending profiles, the social networks would be better, happier places!

Re:Other Offenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we know the middle finger will get banned, why not try to do as many of the other gestures as possible? That would help demonstrate how culturely insensitive this is and help hilight the impracticality of such actions.

Re:Other Offenses

[Quanticfx]

While they're at it, they can get rid of all of those profiles with pictures of people baring their teeth - there are so many of those!

I never smile if I can help it. Showing one's teeth is a submission signal in primates. When someone smiles at me, all I see is a chimpanzee begging for its life. - Dwight Schrute

Re:Other Offenses

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we are at it, get rid of the duckface images. It's offensive to duck.

Re:Other Offenses

[g0bshiTe]

I for one two finger salute this idea.

Re:Other Offenses

[g0bshiTe]

In dogs showing of teeth is a sign of aggression.

Re:Other Offenses

[realityimpaired]

Indeed. It's certainly worthy of the Bras D'Honneur....

Re:Other Offenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends how they're shown. Many dogs also "smile" submissively, showing their teeth - my partner has a border collie who does it all the time. I guess you'd make the same mistake some visitors do and assume he's being aggressive (the TSA teaches us that one sign can be crudely read to determine intent, after all), but the extent to which the lips are moved back, the eyes, the stance, the tail - everything else clearly differentiates it from a display of aggression.

Re:Other Offenses

[mcgrew]

I'm offended at Google's immaturity. Minors aren't allowed to have a G+ account, right? Then what's the problem with someone flipping the bird?

Jesus, Google, grow the fuck up.

Re:Other Offenses

[InterestingFella]

Who shows their teeth when smiling?

Re:Other Offenses

[forkfail]

I have Anthropophobia. All pictures of people scare me. My lawyer says I should sue for a million billion trillion dollars.

Re:Other Offenses

[davester666]

WTF? Chimpanzees of course!

Re:Other Offenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard? The bird is the word!

Re:Other Offenses

[datavirtue]

I understand that in the Muslim world an open mouth (wide) is an offensive sexual gesture, or so I hear. Anyone know if this is true? If you don't want it turning into MySpace I wouldn't allow alcohol or branded items to appear either. With the gradual move towards specialized social media they should develop Google+ to be an effective hub for all of your other social media sites you like to visit. FaceBook is not especially tuned to this and its current setup is not good for organizing your on-line social presence. There are other sites like Project Noah, and Etsy that are strong specialized social media sites, but using FaceBook to tie them all together is a pathetic mess. You need a way to organize and segregate all of your social stuff under one hub AND make it easy to search AND easy to use. FaceBook is a mess, it reminds me of that mission critical enterprise app developed in Excel by someone in marketing.

Re:Other Offenses

[gl4ss]

And if you flipped the bird on the street you could get arrested.
It's exactly what you said, G+ is for adults. Adults should behave as such and not put stupid pictures like that. If adults can't behave themselves, somebody has to force them and in this case it's Google. Better them than the government, but frankly it's sad that a corporation is the one that has to teach proper behavior to people.

where do you get arrested for flipping the bird casually? same place where you can't listen to rap, rock or punk?

but really, the picture in question (the one that google pulled) is pretty goddamn tame.. google went overboard. and if it's the thought that counts, you can still know that it's the middle finger in the censored version he put up.

the point is that google has now chosen to _be_ the censor on how your hand is supposed to be on a profile picture. that's their choice and their failing. it's not like google+ users are representing google in any way and google should have taken that stance, now they'll have to bend over to any shit you can come up with. "that guy is giving the bad eye! it's disrespectful!!!".

next thing they'll start messing with your status updates. "it's really rather offensive to your moma that you think your life sucks so we deleted your update before she saw it".

if google doesn't want to allow people to say fuck you on their social network then fuck google+. now what the fuck are they gonna do to people who goatse others there? are they going to give early pensions to their censors who get shocked to mental institution from some _really_ offensive shit?

Re:Other Offenses

[Grishnakh]

Drinking alcohol on the street can get you arrested too ("drunk in public"). Is Google going to police G+ for images of people drinking? If not, why not?

Re:Other Offenses

[Stan92057]

Maybe its because i cant punch you in the face if you flipped me the bird? Its the same gesture that starts road rage incidents. No its you that needs to grow up i think.

Re:Other Offenses

[cheekyjohnson]

Because apparently they don't care about that as much as they do about middle fingers.

Re:Other Offenses

[VanessaE]

Here's an even better one (IMnsHO):

Some years ago, my cousin had a dog, I forget what breed, who would smile (along with the aforementioned body language) expressly to show affection, particularly when my cousin returned home from work or any moderately-long errand. She would often combine that with generally hyperactive behavior if we'd call out such things as "daddy's home!". We always ascribed this behavior to a head injury she sustained before my cousin got her.

Re:Other Offenses

[Culture20]

Who shows their teeth when smiling?

People who never had to wear braces in middle school. That's when I learned to smile with my lips closed.

Re:Other Offenses

[SETIGuy]

You don't get arrested for casually flipping the bird. You get arrested for taunting a police officer with it.

Re:Other Offenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's illegal in Saudi Arabia as well, just as showing your face and other body-parts.
They also cannot show women driving cars.
Or the beach of Barbara Streisand.

Re:Other Offenses

[mc10]

I'm offended at Google's immaturity. Minors aren't allowed to have a G+ account, right? Then what's the problem with someone flipping the bird?

Jesus, Google, grow the fuck up.

Unfortunately, it's quite simple to bypass the 18+ rule during registration. Google still has the same issue.

Re:Other Offenses

[Darinbob]

It has nothing to do with minors. Adults can find it offensive too. If someone can't be social without showing their middle finger then they need to learn some social skills.

Re:Other Offenses

[Tamran]

What about "the shocker" salute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker_(hand_gesture)

Re:Other Offenses

[cheekyjohnson]

If someone can't be social without showing their middle finger then they need to learn some social skills.

Or perhaps they just have different humor than you? Perhaps they do have social skills, but different ones than you? It might be difficult to believe, but society's (or your) standards probably aren't objectively correct.

Not only that, but this middle fingers in pictures likely aren't directed at anyone in particular. Who exactly would be offended by such a thing? How many people? How many people would be offended enough by some picture that isn't even directed at them specifically to stop using/never use Google+?

Re:Other Offenses

[lothos]

It's not against the law to flip off a cop:

U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone ruled David Hackbart exercised his constitution right to free speech in 2006 when he angrily displayed his middle finger to another driver during a parking dispute in Squirrel Hill and when he displayed the same gesture to Officer Brian Elledge, who told Hackbart to stop.

“The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that non-verbal gestures and symbols may be entitled to First Amendment protection,” Cercone wrote in his 19-page opinion and order filed Monday. “Moreover, several courts, including federal and state courts in Pennsylvania, have found that the expressive use of the middle finger is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_617562.html

Re:Other Offenses

[Simon Brooke]

And if you flipped the bird on the street you could get arrested.

Where? Not in any civilised part of the world, for certain. In most places, freedom of expression is protected by law. There's even an amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees your constitutional right to flip the bird in public.

Re:Other Offenses

[mcgrew]

Maybe its because i cant punch you in the face if you flipped me the bird?

This is just silly. If you get violent because someone makes a gesture, no matter how rude, you have some serious emotional problems.

Re:Other Offenses

[Stan92057]

Its not "Just a Gesture" I see you have lived a sheltered life.

Re:Other Offenses

[mcgrew]

I see you have lived a sheltered life

I see you've never read my journals.

Re:Other Offenses

[Stan92057]

No.why would I? At any rate you clearly missed my point

Re:Other Offenses

[mcgrew]

No.why would I?

Because people constantly ask me to put them in book form. "I've been wondering for a couple years now if you're an interesting character who writes well, or a great writer drafting an interesting character. Don't tell me. Some things are more fun to wonder about. Either way, there's probably some money in it."

Also, I've found that there are a lot of jorrnals here that are often better than the front page articles. Not many seem to write journal entries; I friend my fans, and out of almost 400 of them there are maybe half a dozen who journal.

The advertisers

[Colin Smith]

Don't like it. It damages their image.

Re:The advertisers

[NeutronCowboy]

There might be some truth to it. Or Google is looking at MySpace, and how it was derided as the social network for angsty teens who are trying to shock themselves into relevance.

I think it's simpler than that though. Google is trying so hard to make a relevant social network that it is managing it from the top down. Unfortunately, Social Networks don't work that way. The only reason people will use one is because they get some benefit from it. If the main thing they get from is constant aggravation about playing by some arbitrary rules, they are going to leave.

I would love for there to be a social network around that competes with Facebook. The reality at this point though is that Google+, despite its nifty circles, ain't it. I should be their main evangelist, but I can't endorse a social network where some arbitrary and unknown rule is going to get the entire thing yanked. Dear Google, please let me fuck up my own social network. If I can't be trusted to not put up pictures of me that aren't offensive, will piss off my boss or have my girlfriend walk out on me, then please don't try to help me. You have no idea what is acceptable for 7Billion people, and shouldn't try.

This is the kind of thing where Google ought to keep in mind the old mantra about asking for permission vs for forgiveness - keep the heavy-handed stuff for when you're successful. Kinda like Facebook.

Re:The advertisers

[Tsingi]

Dear Google, please let me fuck up my own social network. If I can't be trusted to not put up pictures of me that aren't offensive, will piss off my boss or have my girlfriend walk out on me, then please don't try to help me.

That's how I feel about seatbelts. Please do not save me from myself.

Re:The advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to post a picture of an old man. (mature) and see it get yanked

~SimonTek

To seatbelt person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzvzqaicMz0&feature=related

Re:The advertisers

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the difference: seatbelts on vs seatbelts off is a very simple situation. It's easy to figure out which one is which, easy to figure out how much each situation costs to implement and to enforce, and how much benefit each one has to those impacted by the decision.

Offensive content, on the other hand, is near impossible to police on a world-wide level. It is impossible to know who is offended by what, the number of things that offend someone somewhere is much greater than those that do not offend anyone anywhere, the policing is horribly expensive, false positives abound and the benefits gained from this approach are unknown at best.

That's why Google's approach is wrong, again. I have to admit, I'm agreeing more and more with someone else's assessment that Google is, at its core, a tech company run by techies, and therefore unable (or at least has a much harder time) to produce something that tickles people's soft underbelly and need for personal validation. They have great tools - love gmail, love maps, love their search - but those are tools. I use them, then stop using them and don't think about them until I have to use them again. Their use is strictly determined by their usefulness: if something else comes along that is better, I will switch in a heartbeat. But they suck at producing an experience - something that makes me feel fuzzy on the inside every time I use it. And quite frankly, that's what Facebook is and does: it satisfies the urge of humans to interact and be social. Until Google understands the purpose of social networks and satisfies those needs, it's going to fail with its last-ditch attempt a staying relevant in one of the most important areas of the Internet.

Re:The advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how I feel about seatbelts. Please do not save me from myself.

Maybe superfluous, and certainly off-topic, but the obligation to wear seatbelts does not come from a desire to protect the driver. It's designed to encourage the correct emergency response.

What would you do if you saw a child run in front of your car? For the sake of pedantry, let's assume that "your car" describes a high-speed motorized vehicle that you're currently operating. You would brake, I hope? Now imagine that you are not wearing a seatbelt. Would you brace yourself before slamming on the brakes? Would you hesitate, even for a split second? Even though you are relatively safe in the car (especially since you can hold on to the steering wheel), that split second translates to meters more distance before full stop. Now imagine your girlfriend or child sitting in the seat next to you, again without seatbelt. Will you still hit the brakes, knowing that your passenger will hit the windshield?

That is the reason why seatbelts are not optional: they are there so you feel safe and protected enough to perform an emergency stop if you need to, without second-guessing.

Re:The advertisers

[future assassin]

>I would love for there to be a social network around that competes with Facebook.

You got one right under your nose, its your friends and family. If they don't talk to you outside of Facebook then you got a bigger problem than wishing for a Facebook competitor.

Re:The advertisers

[ColdWetDog]

That is the reason why seatbelts are not optional: they are there so you feel safe and protected enough to perform an emergency stop if you need to, without second-guessing.

Ah, that's why there still are so many accidents - no one has mandated that we drive with full face helmets, four point harnesses and NASCAR-style crash cages.

Re:The advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely wrong.

Seatbelt laws were heavily lobbied for by insurance companies. Wearing a seatbelt reduces injuries and consequently reduces medical costs they have to pay for.

Re:The advertisers

[SleazyRidr]

So because we've already instituted a reasonable measure with low cost and a very high effectiveness, we should now go on to less reasonable measures with higher costs and lower marginal effectiveness. Good plan!

Re:The advertisers

[avandesande]

Except this has nothing to do with law like seat belts do and everything to do with a privately owned website. Google can run their website as they see fit- I don't have a problem with that.

Re:The advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Don't like it. It damages their image.

This, exactly. If they're going to be using your profile pic on sponsored ads to other people the last thing they're going to want is an 'offensive' picture used.

Re:The advertisers

[ZeroExistenZ]

It's part of that. But also that it started as markettability: "car x is safer as car y so if you care about your life, you but car x".

Later this got put into law (Health insurance costs, disabilities, people being taken out of workforce, political popularity: "He cares abour our safety", people who care about the lives of those who don't care and could drive reckless, ...) and later insurance companies who need to insure for less injury or death (and those who stay behind like women and children without a "caregiver" in the few traditional homes left). And as you point out the safety of other drivers who get impacted of your driving stupidity (crash impact).

And perhaps some personal motivations of people in the entire line of history losing someone left or right in an accident and "wanting to prevent the preventable".

I don't think these things are in place out of selfish reasons, nor a conspirist undertone, nor are a form of "silencing the people" or "taking responsability away"; it's an organic process of many linked and related people trying to do good (wether that means for themselves or for a higher, personally defined, purpose.) the same way you go to work and do your thing.

It's intelligence of crowds and the current time-spirit. Nothing fancier.

Re:The advertisers

[ZeroExistenZ]

Because it wouldn' tbe comfortable and convenient. It took almost 30 years to have people adjust to wearing their seatbelts as "inconvenience". (even with the fear of being fined for it and strong campaigning like they do now with using a cellphone while driving.)

Why would you get into a flame-resistive, full helmet and four point harness for you and your family every time you drive to the grocery store or commute to work ? You would find it hilariously inconvenient.

People DO however on motorcycles.

People DO however on bikes: 10 years ago, people didn't wear helmets on bikes. Right now where I live, everybody growing up with a "helmet for bikers campaign" and over-concerned parents forcing it on their children are now riding around (also as young adults) with a helmet. I don't see the use as I BMX-ed like a crazy free child in the woods and Mountainbiked through airbagless jungles of cities as a teen without dieing and brushing myself off after crashing; my concepts are "this is ridiculous", yet now 90% of bikers in traffic are wearing helmets.

Re:The advertisers

[datavirtue]

It is not about saving you, it is about saving the insurance companies money and providing an additional revenue stream for the state. Everybody wins!

Re:The advertisers

[Tsingi]

It is not about saving you, it is about saving the insurance companies money and providing an additional revenue stream for the state. Everybody wins!

Well, in Canada it's argued that it saves the health system money. I suppose that there is some validity to that.

So when a fat pig with three chins has to pay a fine for eating a big mac, and we start dictating the way people live in general, I'll consider it fair to fine me for not wearing a seat belt.

V Sign.

[BenFenner]

I assume all those reverse peace signs are offensive to the English and we'll see them all taken down too?

Re:V Sign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The V sign is only offensive if facing backwards. Palm toward viewer = peace sign. Back toward viewer = "Piss off" gesture.

Re:V Sign.

[mortonda]

What does the sideways v in front of your eyes mean?

Re:V Sign.

[Evelas]

That you watch too much anime?

Re:V Sign.

[mrclisdue]

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...wise guy, eh?

cheers,

Re:V Sign.

[mjwalshe]

Actualy its a F%^k you to the french - Archers showing they still had two fingers to shoot longbows at the french.

Re:V Sign.

[geminidomino]

That you dance like Uma Thurman?

Re:V Sign.

[BenFenner]

Hence the "reverse" in my original post.

Re:V Sign.

[fedos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRsk17UouEw&t=3m0s

Mature content?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your Profile Picture cannot include mature or offensive content."

Then, they should not have removed it. I find this to be quite immature...

in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country, we believe showing our genitals to others is a sign of respect. Likewise, not showing our genitals (and anus and mammaries) is offensive. To have google+ picture that does not demonstrate pubis or arsehole etc would be deeply offensive.

Gerald Oatse
Christmas Island.

Re:in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they take down all pictures of women showing their ears and mouths and hair, too? (and some have to hide their eyes, too!)

Many years ago, a couple I was friendly with went to Morocco. They hired a driver to take them into the desert to a very remote town. The pictures they came back with were amazing. The woman (our friend) was considered rather risque, because she didn't hide her mouth. The other women in the photo all had their mouths covered, for decency. However, all the other women had their breasts uncovered, and our friend was the only one with them covered.

I think at some point, you have to just decide that the differences will be there, no matter how much censoring you do...whether it be political, religious, or cultural. Most normal people are not terribly offended by people following their beliefs and cultural norms, so long as they don't try to enforce them on others.

I can understand Google not wanting to be kicked out of other markets, besides China. But being causing your customers in the U.S. to abandon you isn't wise, either.

Why am I reminded of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Re:in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to find a cultural reference which supports what you're saying. I couldn't find anything. Can you point me in the right direction? A culture which hides the face but exposes the breast is odd and certainly interesting enough to read about.

Re:in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

mammaries and pubis? i haven't seen those word in a long time. just sayin'. no, i'm not trying to make fun of Gerald Oatse.

Re:in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were from Pen Island...

Re:in my country

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess ... You run Fox News Indian Ocean

I hope you can see this, Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you can see this, Google, because I'm doing it as hard as I can!

Choice?

[jstg]

They caught enough flak with the making users use their real names. I can't see this going over much better. In order to compete with the Facebook's and Diaspora's you'd think they would need to take a more open minded approach to things.

Re:Choice?

[RicardoGCE]

COMPETE with Diaspora? Give me a break. Diaspora is alpha software that requires users to run their own web server. It's a fucking great concept that will nonetheless never catch on with a large enough audience to ever matter to anyone but its users.

The same could be said about desktop Linux, but Linux has found plenty of life in other markets. Until Diaspora finds that niche, there's no "competition" to speak of.

Re:Choice?

[DerekLyons]

In order to compete with the Facebook's and Diaspora's you'd think they would need to take a more open minded approach to things.

Competing with Facebook means competing for the thirty-to-fifty crowd - and your "open minded" scheme is precisely the opposite of what attracts them. The absolute last thing Google wants is to repeat the mistakes of MySpace and LiveJournal and have a reputation as being a has-been that attracts mostly teen and young adult drama. Facebook is already getting something of that reputation with all the party pics, etc... etc...
 
Why the thirty to fifty crowd? Because, as many Slashdotters fail to realize, Facebook introduced a seismic shift in the social network paradigm - it's not just for kids anymore. Social networking is now used by a variety of businesses and professionals, and where they go, people will follow. (Though Google seems to have missed that.) Where the older folks go, the slightly less older folks will follow to stay connected. You can't build a stable social networking system on fly-by-night, short attention span, follow the fashion, teens and twentysomethings. The name of the game now is slowly grasping each demographic in turn, and building a solid base from there.
 
As far as competing with Diaspora - that's like claiming the NY Yankees are competing with the little league teams that plays down the road from me. It's laughable. As popular as Diaspora is with the disaffected Slashdot and/or techie crowd... It's meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Those enamored of Diaspora are those pissed at other networks, and they'll get pissed and move on again. They're unstable and marginal.

Re:Choice?

[ianare]

Diaspora doesn't require you to run your own server (a node called a "pod"), what it does is allow you to run your own node and still interact with all other nodes. This is is why it's a distributed social network.

I think most users are still on the main node, however there are a bunch of pods that you can choose from.

Re:Choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly why I don't believe their claims of it being private and secure. Anyone could run a compromised pod.

Re:Choice?

[Bob9113]

requires users to run their own web server.

You can host for your friends, so they don't have to. A single Diaspora node can host many accounts for little or no additional cost or maintenance. Granted, one person in your social circle has to run a node, but look at the upside -- great trick to expand geek entree into broader social circles. And, yes, it still means that more people have to run webservers. But, the point is decentralization. More people running servers is pretty much the definition of success.

never catch on with a large enough audience to ever matter to anyone but its users.

I remember when my Dad had a secretary who had a computer and used it to write his reports. Now he writes his own reports on his own computer. We should all have more authority over the servers we use to publish our social information for the same reason my Dad should write his own reports -- makes the resulting product a more accurate reflection of his intent.

Re:Choice?

[Bob9113]

As far as competing with Diaspora - that's like claiming the NY Yankees are competing with the little league teams that plays down the road from me. It's laughable. As popular as Diaspora is with the disaffected Slashdot and/or techie crowd... It's meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Those enamored of Diaspora are those pissed at other networks, and they'll get pissed and move on again. They're unstable and marginal.

Your aimless and wandering rant against Diaspora sounds to me like a song without a tune. You don't think Diaspora is the solution, aren't entirely sure why, have a few vague answers you've heard before, maybe the same things you've been telling yourself for why you haven't set up a node yet.

I think that is good. I think that is a healthy and good perspective to have.

That perspective implies that you haven't really developed your image of the problem space yet. Here's a key point to keep in mind: Decentralization of information distribution is good. Always has been. From Gutenberg to the replacement of secretaries with personal computers, every time we have decentralized the control of information distribution, society has made a giant leap forward in pretty much every measurable sense.

So, now, think about that as you develop your image of Diaspora. How does Diaspora compare with the advent of personal computers and everyone writing their own reports? Everyone *should* have their own server and be publishing their own social information. And they will. And as it happens, we all get to enjoy another giant leap forward.

It is coming. Diaspora is not really ready yet. It is not easy enough yet. It may not even be the one that wins. But it is the first mover, which confers a significant advantage.

Just some food for thought.

Re:Choice?

[quacking duck]

I'm early-30s, and anecdotally, all the 50+ (never mind 30-50) year olds I know who are using social networks are on Facebook, not G+. Some of them are the most prolific posters of status updates, photos, and links, too.

Dozens of us tried out G+ when it was making the news early this year, but it's dropped off to almost nothing the last few months. Only one friend posts at all on G+ anymore, and he cross-posts everything to FB anyway.

LinkedIn is the business and professional's social network.

MySpace failed for a number of reasons, teen drama played but a small part. FB may have that drama but FB lets you easily avoid it, either by not friending (or de-friending) them, or blocking their game/app requests, or just "unsubscribe" from their angsty updates.

Facebook has plenty of flaws and shortcomings, privacy being near the top of the list, but their ability to keep the vast majority of social networking traffic is not one of them.

Re:Choice?

[AbRASiON]

It's one of the few google services I have no interest in, thus far their policies have been absoloutely certain to keep me away from the product. I'm quite surprised they continue to be this stupid.

Re:Choice?

[DerekLyons]

ROTFLMAO.

You could have just written "I haven't a clue what you just said, and can't be bothered to try so I'll just type in some bullshit that I think makes me sound intelligent" (but which actually makes you sound clueless and stoned out of your gourd).

It would have saved us both heaps of time and effort.

Re:Choice?

[Rexdude]

LiveJournal is primarily a blogging platform, with some limited 'social networking' features - if that's what you would call the ability to mention other users in your posts or control who gets to see what posts. It isn't competing with Facebook or Myspace or any of the rest.

Some other examples of culturally specific offense

[OzPeter]

(yes I know there is a lot of overlap between these sites)

7 innocent gestures that can get you killed overseas

5 common american gestures that might insult the locals

Top 10 Hand Gestures Yu'd Better Get Right

List of Gestures

Will these be banned by the Google Censors as well? Or don't the Google Censors use Google to easily find lists of gestures that are culturally specific?

Re:Google is an American

[InterestingFella]

Google is everywhere, and they have local companies too. Their headquarters might be in U.S., but you can't really say that Google is American company. Especially with the tax holes they use so they can pay less U.S. taxes.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[Servaas]

I think they used common sense for this one.

Google is doing that manually?

[Animats]

Is Google doing this automatically, like face-blurring in StreetView? Or do they have thousands of low-paid employees somewhere doing this? It doesn't seem cost-effective.

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[Servaas]

But does it create jobs?

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[LateArthurDent]

Is Google doing this automatically, like face-blurring in StreetView? Or do they have thousands of low-paid employees somewhere doing this? It doesn't seem cost-effective.

They probably only look at it once someone flags it as an inappropriate image.

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[ArsenneLupin]

hey probably only look at it once someone flags it as an inappropriate image.

And there's your solution: flag all images as inapropriate (... or have a script do it for you...), and it becomes prohibitively expensive for them to check them all...

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't seem all that expensive to write a script that ignores all flags coming from your account. In fact, I bet it's already done.

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[Anonymous Coward]

easy to expand to ignore flags coming from all accounts too!

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be too expensive.

Not many people are on Google +.

Re:Google is doing that manually?

[BitZtream]

Except they could easily detect your script, they already have provisions for detecting automation that you're going to have to defeat first. I've tried, its certainly not impossible but its non-trivial to do for any extended number of requests.

And its unlikely that one 'flagging' would trigger them to look at it, it probably requires multiple people flagging it to matter.

Google has dealt with trolls far better than you for years. Hell, I've dealt with trolls far better than you for years and I'm a nobody.

I removed my G+ account

[TheTruthIs]

Cause I had the feeling that google was giving me the finger.

Re:I removed my G+ account

[Anonymous Coward]

Mature content is not allowed?! Only childish content then?
Does Google (or Americans) have a definition of "mature" that I am not aware of?

PS: sorry for posting in reply but trying to open a new comment did not work with my browser (safari for iPad).

Re:Google is an American

[OzPeter]

company, as such they remove American offensive gestures.

Someone has to create civility.

The trouble with "$Company is a $Country company" is when that company has a large number of global clients/users. If $company starts cracking down on something only related to $country, then it opens themselves up to charges of $country specific bias.

Please ....

[PPH]

... think of the children!

I gave up on Google+

[assertation]

I gave up on Google+ and this article makes me glad I did.

Their real name policy turned me off by seeming draconian. Google's reason for it, to get more money selling my information.....made me feel victimized.

I used a fake name, with a brand new Google account anyway, but I found it to be a pain in the ass to log out of my primary gmail account just so I could check Google+.

On top of all of that 99% of my FB friends didn't want to get on.....or regularly use G+ on top of FB.

So, I just post to FB less, don't use G+ at all and am waiting for diaspora to eventually get its act together.

Completely reasonable

[artor3]

They want profile pics to be inoffensive. The middle finger gesture is offensive, and intentionally so. They're not going to remove things that might offend specific foreigners because those foreigners make up a vanishingly small segment of their user base. To complain about this seeming contradiction is to commit a line drawing fallacy.

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

so, what you're saying is that the fig is ok?

Re:Completely reasonable

[InterestingFella]

They're not going to remove things that might offend specific foreigners because those foreigners make up a vanishingly small segment of their user base. To complain about this seeming contradiction is to commit a line drawing fallacy.

Actually, non-US people make up majority of the worlds population. Should they remove anything that can offend someone somewhere? Because then we have nothing there.

Re:Completely reasonable

[artor3]

Way to commit the EXACT fallacy that I just said you would commit. Hey, let's try it in the other direction... "If they can't disallow offensive content, then should they allow child porn?" It's no less absurd then thinking that disallowing the middle finger means they have to disallow all content.

And who cares what the global demographic is? What matters is the google+ demographic, which is predominantly American, with a bunch of Indians, Canadians, and British thrown in. The Muslim membership is miniscule. However, if there were an Iraqi version of the site in which the membership was predominantly Iraqi, it would make sense for them to allow middle fingers but disallow the soles of shoes.

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you miss the part where he said "user base"? If the vast majority of my customers are from one part of the world, who says I can't design my service to cater to them specifically? The advertisers that pay for it probably -expect- you to do this.

Re:Completely reasonable

[InterestingFella]

And who cares what the global demographic is?

Like I just said, Google does. They want to compete with Facebook and be the largest social network on planet. Their demographic is the whole planet, not just U.S.

Re:Completely reasonable

[cheekyjohnson]

"Reasonable" is subjective.

Again, so what if people get offended?

The middle finger gesture is offensive

Certainly not to me. I don't advocate removing things that are offensive to the majority for the sole reason that they are offensive to the majority.

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the finger, it is a Hawaiian good luck symbol. At least that is what the crew of USS Pueblo said in North Korea. http://www.webcitation.org/5t7qPfttm

Re:Completely reasonable

[tokul]

Guy did something that was offensive in his own cultural environment and was punished. Then other dickheads followed the thread.

Re:Completely reasonable

[gl4ss]

*What matters is the google+ demographic, which is predominantly American*

you might just have stumbled upon on why g+ is a failure. facebook is global. slashdot is global. if their intended audience is easily offended american middle upper class who doesn't want to get offended in any way then they're going to be screwed, totally. it's like making a music store only catering to people who listen to Mozart. there's a wide difference with offering a social network and offering a community interaction site too, something they don't seem to be able to grasp(the realname debacle implies that too). a proper social network functions as if you were hosting your own server, but being easier - that the user/hoster doesn't need to share usernames and logins to so many people manually. google is policying as if you were on a google band community fan site( though I don't suppose it's that much of a wonder then that most g+ updates I've seen linked anywhere are from google engineers explaining some google policy or another - where are the real posts by realworld people?? ).

google+ has already elitist vibe to it's street cred and this isn't helping at all. the snobby kind of vibe. the kind of where you'd miss all the fun stuff and never get offended.

but let's face it: who the fuck really gets offended by a strangers middle finger on the internet? the picture was very, very tame by any standard - this is why this grew to be such a big issue. you get more offensive stuff looking at news pictures. the funny thing is of course that google has now offended more people than that middle finger ever would have.

Re:Completely reasonable

[artor3]

It's Google's service.

If I owned a restaurant, I might not allow people to talk on cell phones in it. Yes, not everyone is offended by that behavior, but I have reason to believe that a lot of my customers might be, and that's not the atmosphere I wish to promote. If you really want to talk on your phone, you can go elsewhere, and if you really want to flip off anyone viewing your profile, you can go elsewhere. It's not like they're banning some arbitrary behavior. Surely you acknowledge that most people are offended by the gesture, and that indeed the whole point of the gesture is to offend.

Re:Completely reasonable

[cheekyjohnson]

It's Google's service.

Yes. And in other comments, I've already mentioned that Google can do this if they so desire. But I also mentioned that they're not exempt from criticism. I don't agree with this decision, so I voiced my disagreement.

Google's intentions seem obvious to me, but I still don't agree with their decision.

Surely you acknowledge that most people are offended by the gesture

I don't know how many people are offended by the gesture. I've seen no hard evidence.

and that indeed the whole point of the gesture is to offend.

To me, that's quite irrelevant. Even if it was intended to be offensive, that doesn't mean you need to be offended by it.

Re:Completely reasonable

[cheekyjohnson]

Also, I wonder how many people would stop using Google+ (or not sign up for an account) merely because they saw a picture where someone was giving the middle finger. Unlike if someone gave you the finger in real life, it's probably not directed at anyone in particular. So even if someone is offended by such a thing, would they really stop using (or never sign up for an account on) Google+ merely because they saw someone in a picture give the finger?

Re:Completely reasonable

[sonamchauhan]

No, artor3 is absolutely right.

Currently, G+ targets the same demographic as Facebook. And virtually everyone on Facebook will recognize a raised middle finger as offensive.

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a perfectly valid word in Chinese Sign Language, meaning (among other things, depending on context) "Brother".

AC

Re:Completely reasonable

[BitZtream]

facebook is global.

But the dominate majority is american, so it doesn't matter. My company is global, we sold to 3 people in South Africa last year. Doesn't mean we design products for South Africans, since those 3 South African sales were worth the effort.

slashdot is global.

And 99.99999% of slashdot users recognize the finger as offensive. Plenty of people are pretending that its perfectly normal so they can rant about censorship, but everyone here most certainly recognizes it as offensive ... of course thats because ... most of slashdot's user base is from America, hence the bias towards ... American nerd news.

it's like making a music store only catering to people who listen to Mozart.

Well, I don't know about Mozart specifically, but I can name a store that only sells Jimmy Buffet stuff. I can think of stores that only sell Jazz. I can think of lots of very successful businesses that are focused. I can't really name one non-massive company that isn't rather focused in one or two specific areas, well, at least I can't think of any that aren't failures.

there's a wide difference with offering a social network and offering a community interaction site too

Yep, but for the most part, we're all humans with the same basic wants and needs. The differences in cultures are not that big in the grand scheme of things, even if you and a few others like you try to blow them out of proportion. Most people have the common sense to not be offended by someone elses ignorance in regard to gestures. There are of course fanatics, mostly the religious type that go to extremes but you can't really cater to them either. Most people won't take offense when a foreigner makes a gesture that is offensive to them since they know the foreigner might be ignorant of their culture. Most people have common sense, thats how they survive in the world. The worst that happens is they say 'stupid Americans' and then they don't get bothered about it anymore.

However, when that stupid American makes it clear they understand the gesture they are making is offensive and they do it intentionally, well that changes things.

(the realname debacle implies that too).

Google has chosen not to be a platform for you to use to remain anonymous. They didn't do it because they wanted your real name. They already know your real name, with the amount of data they get, its trivial for them to figure out exactly who you are.

Why they made that choice, I don't know. Perhaps they don't want to get involved in political issues where people like the Chinese speak out against their country and hide behind Google. They at least are making it clear they you will not be hidden and thats not what G+ is about. G+ is about your real identity being known, if you don't like that, its not for you.

I like it. I really don't have a problem with it, perhaps its because I stopped doing things that embarrassed me or that I wanted to hide from other people. I realize now that people are also a lot less likely to be dicks if their real name is attached, plenty of people are still dicks, but there are fewer of them.

Computer courage is a funny thing. People will do amazing shit if they think people won't realize its them.

who the fuck really gets offended by a strangers middle finger on the internet?

Me. Well, not really, but I don't really need to see your finger so you can show me that your a douche bag because you think the first thing people should see about you is the finger.

We're talking about someone who is intentionally putting a KNOWN offensive gesture on the first thing you see about the person, it shows up everywhere.

We're not talking about doing something that may be misconstrued. No one uses the finger in any way except to mean fuck

Re:Completely reasonable

[InterestingFella]

Do you have some data to back this up? Because I have many friends in countries where it isn't offensive gesture but at the same time others are (which again aren't offensive to U.S. people and westerners).

The thing is, if you don't know anyone from other countries you might feel like they don't exist on Facebook. Language is different, culture is different, what they like is mostly different. You don't get to see them if you don't friend with them or their friends. Hell, even their names can be written in non-latin characters.

But sure, if you have some actual data provided by Facebook to back this up, please enlighten us!

Re:Completely reasonable

[InterestingFella]

facebook is global.

But the dominate majority is american, so it doesn't matter. My company is global, we sold to 3 people in South Africa last year. Doesn't mean we design products for South Africans, since those 3 South African sales were worth the effort.

No, it really isn't. You're just being incredibly ignorant.

Re:Completely reasonable

[tokul]

I have many friends in countries where it isn't offensive gesture

It does not have to be offensive in your country, but you will recognize it and know what it means just like your friends do.

Re:Completely reasonable

[InterestingFella]

Actually, in my home country it is offensive. But I also live much of my year in Asia and it doesn't have that meaning there. There are many other things that are considered rude that Americans wouldn't even know about. Like touching someones head or pointing something with leg.

Re:Completely reasonable

[cheekyjohnson]

And 99.99999% of slashdot users recognize the finger as offensive.

[citation needed]

Go cry to your mother

[ZeroExistenZ]

This is a very good policy to keep up the atmosphere in G+ and not deteriote so a myspace or facebook.

It's another universe, if you want to put up "immature" material, don't go on G+. It's the same as with the Android store or AppStore of IPhone: "you are offered a free platform. But the platform is defined for you. IF you want to express yourself outside of the set boundaries, take your expression onto yourself and your own platforms/tools"

Re:Go cry to your mother

[kaizendojo]

Agreed. Start a social network of your own, pay for the servers, staff and bandwidth. Fill it with angry techs who rant about freedoms on a platform they pay nothing to join. They can call it.... slashdot

Re:Go cry to your mother

[bonch]

This is a very good policy to keep up the atmosphere in G+ and not deteriote so a myspace or facebook.

And who doesn't love an atmosphere of censorship and intrusiveness? Don't you dare flip anyone off or use a pseudonym! The all-important advertisers don't like it!

Re:Go cry to your mother

[InterestingFella]

Sure, but Google wants to be competitor to Facebook and have the largest social network on the planet. This means they have to accept stuff that is "immature" too. And that's not even counting the cultural issues.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Xeranar]

Slippery slope down the lane......Slippery slope of stupidity...

Removing middle finger pictures is a statement on obscenity and isn't really a great fight over censorship and intrusiveness is a relative concept on the internet. Think of G+ as a big cafe, you wouldn't flip the bird there if you were a reasonable person, so why do it on G+?

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Anonymous Coward]

"Censorship is okay if it's something I don't like!"

And yes, that IS what your post meant.

And I'm not going to think of G+ as a big cafe because it isn't one, or anything that even vaguely resembles one in any way. It's a goddamn website.

Really, it shouldn't be possible to out-stupid bonch, but you've managed it somehow. Congratulations, I guess.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[quacking duck]

What "atmosphere" does G+ give?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, only one of the dozens of us who tried G+ bothers posting there anymore. The atmosphere is that of a barren wasteland.

On my FB an average day sees ten or twenty original posts, plus all the comments. And over half the "immature" or "naughty" content on my FB comes from middle-age or older women on my friends list.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[horza]

I agree. The best way to keep a social media site clean is to ensure there are no people.

Phillip.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[insertwackynamehere]

Yeah it is a website. A website you don't have to join.

It's not a fucking law. It's a private business making business decisions. If you don't like it don't give them your business. It's the free market in action.

But you are too stupid too get that aren't you. Someone does something you don't like and it must be morally and legally wrong. It is sickening how many of you would puppet the law in your favor at the drop of a hat no matter how much anger you pretend to have against authoritarianism.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Overly Critical Guy]

Google always makes a big deal about how it tries not to remove links and how it refuses to comply with requests from the Chinese government. Google+ has already given you the tools to filter reality to fit your moral values, through the use of the block feature. They don't need to silently go into your account and delete your middle finger. Which, by the way, Twitter allows in its avatars.

Nobody said it was a law or that it wasn't the right of a private business to make that decision. Nobody said it was legally wrong. People often resort to your counterargument ("They have the right!") when they can't respond to the moral criticism being made.

Your talk of puppeting the law is, frankly, bizarre and completely out of nowhere.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing that I said implied that it's a law or that this censorship is illegal, and you know it. You deliberately and consciously made up that position as a strawman and pretended that I advanced it. This makes you a liar.

But as for morally wrong? Yes, it is absolutely and indisputably morally wrong. No justification is possible, and any attempt at it can never be anything but more lies.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[aztektum]

No one forces you to have immature twats on your Facebook friends list, FYI.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[BitZtream]

They don't need to silently go into your account and delete your middle finger.

Silent? Uhm, they sent an email explaining that THEY removed it and way.

Which, by the way, Twitter allows in its avatars.

Are you seriously trying to use twitter as an example for your side of the argument? Seriously?

Re:Go cry to your mother

[BitZtream]

Thats because G+ is for people who do shit.

Facebook is for people who don't do shit and have a lot of free time around to fuck off on the Internet, reading and posting to others. Much like slashdot, which I might point out, is exactly why I post on slashdot and read it :)

I prefer the low flow of G+ as I have it now. I have it send me notifications because I get posts in spurts every few days from my actual friends. Only one of them posts ridiculously and since he has a kid now, he's down to almost normal as well. In his defense, he's a Google employee, so I think he's obligated to use it often :)

Facebook is just a steady stream of crap that I don't care about from people who don't have anything better to do than tell us about their mood every 30 minutes or giving us a play by play of the cats day.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[BitZtream]

Well, true, you can have no friends on facebook.

My experience however leads me to believe that everyone on Facebook is an immature twat, so in order to be active on facebook, you must have immature twats in your friend list.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[quacking duck]

Facebook is just a steady stream of crap that I don't care about from people who don't have anything better to do than tell us about their mood every 30 minutes or giving us a play by play of the cats day.

You can block from your newsfeed friends that write steady streams of crap, without unfriending them.

In other words, you're doing it wrong :-)

Re:Go cry to your mother

[InterestingFella]

No, you just have immature twats as your friends. Both fb friends, and real life friends.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[insertwackynamehere]

I don't actually think a company censoring is morally wrong. I would rather companies censor themselves as they want rather than the government censoring everyone. That way there will always be a place that is uncensored, filling that niche and meanwhile the people who want censorship are satiated by the other options rather than forcing the government to gaze into people's lives.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Overly Critical Guy]

Silent? Uhm, they sent an email explaining that THEY removed it and way.

AFTER they removed it, without any prior warning.

Are you seriously trying to use twitter as an example for your side of the argument? Seriously?

Uh, why wouldn't I? Twitter is the second most popular social network beneath Facebook and a major competitor to Google+. Do you have a legitimate response here or are you just going to repeat "seriously" a bunch of times, thinking that it's a valid argument?

Re:Go cry to your mother

[Anonymous Coward]

I said that any possible defense of this censorship can only possibly be a lie, and your response supports that.

You set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that if Google wasn't engaging in this censorship, that the government would be. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. Therefore, the only possible reason you could have proposed this idea is that you knew that the truth was against you, and so you created this lie in the hopes that it would disguise the weakness of your argument.

You are a liar, and an incompetent one at that.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[OzPeter]

I think they used common sense for this one.

Care to define what common sense is in this case? Is it trying to grab the low hanging fruit (ie remove gestures that the censors at Google think are bad), or is realising that you can't appease everybody (and hence just forget about it)?

V for Victory

[Anonymous Coward]

Not peace sign, but victory sign.

Re:V for Victory

[g0bshiTe]

http://www.ooze.com/finger/html/foriegn.html

Found this thought is relevant.

I was under the impression the two finger salute had something to do with a war, where a king ordered the index and middle finger cut from all archers hands so they could no longer shoot, the sign then became an insult by showing the king you still had your fingers. Like a big "fook you"

Re:V for Victory

[jareth-0205]

It was apparently the French that threatened it in Battle of Agincourt because the English archers were too good.

Whether this is true or a myth though is up for debate...

you made me laugh

[unity100]

angsty teens who are trying to shock themselves into relevance.

Meh

[Dega704]

It doesn't bother me too much because I think giving the middle finger in your pic demonstrates a total lack of class, but it isn't exactly Google's place to regulate people making buffoons of themselves.

Glad I never signed up for this POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: just another spineless, moralistic company

Re:Google is an American

[LateArthurDent]

Someone has to create civility.

Whoa, whoa. No good can come from that attitude. Who decides what is civil? It doesn't really fit into, "it's an American value" mantra, I'm sure many of the people showing their middle fingers in those pictures ARE Americans. I'm an American and I'm considering joining the profile protest even though I'm not the type of person who would throw that out there normally (and my family has my google+ info, so it's going to be annoying explaining that to the more conservative among them).

If you don't want to be associated with people who would post pictures you consider crass, don't visit their google pages. Don't go trying to "create civility" by censuring them.

They really can go pound sand.

[bmo]

While I dislike Facebook, it has one thing going for it:

They don't do anything if nobody reports you. They don't actively seek out non-compliant accounts unless you are under 13 and are dumb enough to put in your real age. They don't care.

I can quietly be myself under my assumed name.

Facebook rapes your account for demographics.
G+ rapes your account for demographics.

Pick your poison.

I am on both, but G+ lays fallow because G+ doesn't have anything that motivates me to move everything over to G+. The last brouhaha with real names turned me off. Active censorship of accounts like this also turns me off.

As a side note, I didn't look, but I expect ESR to be licking Google's boots on this subject too, as it applies to his "civility" and "hotgirl69 problem."

--
BMO

Re:They really can go pound sand.

[swillden]

They don't do anything if nobody reports you. They don't actively seek out non-compliant accounts unless you are under 13 and are dumb enough to put in your real age. They don't care.

Is there anything here to suggest that Google does actively seek out non-compliant accounts or address unreported policy violations?

I'll bet in this case that someone flagged the pic as inappropriate and that's the only reason it got looked at.

Google+ still exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was scrapped after the beta was finished.
Oh, wait, it's a google product, so the beta will never finish.

BTW:
I'm offended by people with two eyes, so please remove those pictures too.

Don't like it, Don't use it

[whisper_jeff]

It's Google's business - they can run it however they want. If you walk into a McDonalds and start swearing and cursing out loud, I think it's reasonable _and expected_ to be escorted off the premises. Google is simply doing the same thing, just on the internet. And here's the important part: If you don't like it, don't use it. Easy. Stop bitching and complaining - if you don't like their product, don't use it. Move on.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[gbjbaanb]

I suppose the difference is that you'll be escorted off the premises if someone complains. If no-one has a problem with it, what's the problem?

Google, unfortunately, takes the approach usually preferred by dictatorships and fanatic groups where they decide what is and isn't allowed and then enforces it, regardless of whether the common userbase (or populace) has a problem with it.

The argument of "don't like it don't use it" starts to fall apart when the service becomes large enough. For example, you may not like Facebook, but refusing to use it locks you out of the service that all your friends use - which is counter-productive. In such cases it is better to demand change. I think that all these services should become regulated when they reach a critical mass to prevent abuse from the owning corporations. If the corps don't like it, they should foster serious competition instead.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

As you said it's business, and it's bad business for Google. That's the whole point of complaining. You write a complaint to a company to tell them that you care enough about an issue that you are willing to give them the chance to know why you are angry, instead of just walking out the door without an explanation. I don't agree in whining just to whine, but it's perfectly fine to critique actions from a company.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[cheekyjohnson]

The fact that they can do it doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

> . If no-one has a problem with it, what's the problem?

I'll give a hint here - it's unlikely that Google has spent time developing a middle finger detection algorithm. They almost certainly don't have someone going through every profile picture posted - it won't scale, and they don't like human labor. More than likely, someone -did- complain (or hit the "report offensive image" button). Just saying.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite sure that if you make a public spectacle of yourself at McD's, the manager will remove you even if no patron complained. It makes me and others uncomfortable to have to complain about someone, and it's nice to have the establishment do that for you.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[White Flame]

Huh? There are tons of people who start swearing & cursing out loud in places like McDonald's. The only reason they'd get kicked out is if they appeared to pose a threat to the safety of people around them, or started interfering with the business itself depending on how long it went on. If they're going on for a while, even if they never said anything profane or offensive, they still should be asked to leave, because it is the disruptiveness, not offensiveness, that is the problem.

Posting a picture of a common minor vulgarity is not disruptive to anything.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[horza]

Agreed. People were protective over G+ and apt to complain because they expected everybody to move wholesale from Facebook to G+. Now G+ is dead in the water there isn't much point bitching. Diaspora is took disorganised and immature. You will just have to wait until the next alternative to Facebook comes along. Patience.

Phillip.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[sonamchauhan]

Someone _will_ complain

Even if they don't, people are offended -- and people includes staff.

Are you offended when someone flips you the bird for no reason? Your parents? Your children?

No? That's fine. Stay that way, its a beautiful place.

Just don't flip out the rest of us don't think so.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not offended by someone giving the finger at all, but even if someone was offended by it, giving the middle finger in a picture that isn't directed at anyone in particular is quite different than doing it to someone in real life.

Really, how many people would stop using/never use Google+ because of a few images of someone giving the middle finger? If such people exist, I'm surprised they're able to function properly in society while being so sensitive.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

Images _are_ meant to represent real life.... it isn't all that different. A picture of a person flipping the bird is trying to offend at some level.
And it _may_ be directed to someone in particular (your ex-spouse, blacks, police...)

Most people won't give up G+ but would prefer not having the constant low-level irritation.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[cheekyjohnson]

A picture of a person flipping the bird is trying to offend at some level.

It doesn't matter what they're trying to do (after all, someone trying to offend someone by saying "hello" probably wouldn't be too successful). What I was saying is that it's rather different from flipping a specific person off.

And it _may_ be directed to someone in particular

Or it might not be. Someone giving the middle finger in a picture is pretty vague.

Most people won't give up G+ but would prefer not having the constant low-level irritation.

For one thing, how do you know that's what most people want?

Second of all, why should it be removed merely because some people seem to think that they have the right to not be offended? Is it the end of the world if they get offended? Why should we care about them and treat them differently than anyone else who gets offended by certain 'stupid' things? I don't believe there is an objective reason to do this, and it's based on mere preference. Some people probably don't like the middle finger, so its use on Google+ is being suppressed.

It doesn't cause any tangible harm to anyone, and I think it's extremely petty to remove it. As I said, I can't believe such oversensitive people can function in society. It seems like they'd constantly be getting offended by everything.

thumbs up is also offensive in some cultures

[karuna]

In Ukraine showing thumbs up with your hand is considered obscene due to some vague reference to erected penis. I have been reprimanded for showing it by older Ukrainians. I think that younger people no longer care about this though.

Wikipedia also mentions that it is also offensive in Iran but I have no direct experience about it.

Re:thumbs up is also offensive in some cultures

[Anonymous Coward]

... I think that younger people no longer care about this though.

Wikipedia also mentions that it is also offensive in Iran but I have no direct experience about it.

So thanks for taking the time to inform us, about nothing.

Re:thumbs up is also offensive in some cultures

[shutdown -p now]

In Ukraine showing thumbs up with your hand is considered obscene due to some vague reference to erected penis. I have been reprimanded for showing it by older Ukrainians.

Most likely these are some second- or third-generation Ukrainian immigrants in US or Canada. There's nothing obscene about thumbs-up in Ukraine today. It has the same exact meaning as it does in US.

Re:Google is an American

[Anonymous Coward]

it opens themselves up to charges of $country specific bias.

So what? Is that going to cost Google any advertising revenue?

This is why Google+ is failing

[jonfr]

This is why Google+ is failing now. Like other Google Serveries they maintain ridicules rules on what can and cannot be done. This rule problem is in all Google serveries, not just in Google+. This is also why Google+ is now failing. Because once Google+ removes your profile picture. People often remove there Google+ profile, for good.

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

400 million users plus is considered a fail now? "Serveries" sounds more like a fail to me....

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[Lunix Nutcase]

Google+ does not have 400 million users.

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[gl4ss]

400 million users plus is considered a fail now? "Serveries" sounds more like a fail to me....

google+ _may_ have 400million "users" "in 2012". may. active users? that's anybodys guess.

and I dread the day they'll start nagging on gmail to turn it on for the accounts, which will be few weeks before their bonus target user counts are going to be counted on and start nagging on my android to turn it on.

but there's users and then there's users, orkut has 66 million users. it's like google forgot that they have that..

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[InterestingFella]

Google has nowhere close to 400 million users, and probably never will. There are practically no active users now, apart from geeks...

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[BitZtream]

They've grown to almost 70 million users. Comparing to Facebook, myspace, and livejournal's growth rates, its hard to say that G+ is failing. Its growing more rapidly.

Re:This is why Google+ is failing

[InterestingFella]

And they're only there because Google has been pushing it so hard. However, once they get in and see how useless it is, most people just forget about it and never use it. The active users on Google+ is probably 0.1% of who have registered there.

Re:Google is an American

[Vairon]

Google may have started in the US but they have offices in over 80 countries now.

An individual or group does not have to force their limited view of civility on other people. One group forcing their view of civility on others by removing pictures of self-expression is censorship. Since they are a private enterprise they are free to do this but that does not change that it's censorship.

Re:Google is an American

[BitZtream]

Who decides what's civil? The population and society in general. That's where our laws, ethics, and manners come from. We define it.

We also (we being every older than an angsty teenager mentally probably agree by a large majority that the finger is not really going to be missed.

Your arguing just to argue. That's not productive to anyone.

Unclothed women

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about time someone started censoring pictures on the Internet! Did you know you can find pictures of unclothed females? Infedels! Women should never be seen in a picture in such a state! Women should only wear a burka and never show their face! What is this world coming to when women post photos of uncovered faces?

Now I'm of to blow up a Jew.

(boom)

Damn it, they are all WOW players!!!

stop the typical /. nonsense

[mapkinase]

Offensive is not what you or somebody else find offensive. It's a statistically determined measure, determined by number of complaints (whether actual or predicted).

Number of complaints is determined by number of g+ users who could be offended by gesture, number of people who used that gesture and how overlapping those sets are.

The gesture will become an issue only if the complaints will be vocal. Nobody removes anything nowadays for theoretical considerations.

So stop bringing your theoretical examples. This should be actually made an online offense: using theoretical arguments.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[InterestingFella]

So do you also support banning gays because many have irrational problem about them?

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[insertwackynamehere]

Are you actually this dumb or playing dress up

Google isn't banning anyone. It's a company providing a service. This isn't the Supreme Court passing down a decision here.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[cheekyjohnson]

Google isn't banning anyone.

What about the pictures or profiles? They're not banning those?

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[BitZtream]

Nope.

They're just saying that if people complain about your blatantly offensive PUBLIC picture that shows up on EVERYTHING your name is attached to on G+ then they'll make it not your public face anymore.

You're still more than welcome to post links about it to your friends or the public, or host it in your photo albums.

You just aren't allowed do it in such a way that it is forced to be viewed by others.

Example: A priest posts publically on G+ for whatever reason. He has thousands of followers that would most certainly find the gesture offensive. These people are not going to visit your personal profile pictures on their own. You may post a link to them, but users have to actively follow it to see the pictures, and they can NOT follow it again in the future.

Your primary profile photos however, will show up next to your posts. So you can simply post a comment on one of the priests' public posts and now everyone reading his posts will see your profile photo. You have effectively forced your photo to be viewed by people who didn't want to.

Google could just block your account all together if you did that as you're clearly an asshole who needs to be removed. Or, they could just remove the photo, sense you don't seem to be an asshole otherwise, maybe just dumb.

How would you expect to be treated if you were wearing a T-shirt that said 'Fuck You!' on it in the doctors office? At a restaurant? The grocery store? In a class full of 5th graders? Let me give you a hint, G+ is being nice.

G+ isn't intended as a hang out for angsty teenagers who think they have to show the world just how anti-WhateverYouArea/Have they are.

Sorry, you'll have to stick to facebook until you grow up.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[InterestingFella]

Where did I say anything about Supreme Court? I just asked if you support banning gays too because you have some irrational problem with them?

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[cheekyjohnson]

You just aren't allowed do it in such a way that it is forced to be viewed by others.

It isn't forced. No one forces oversensitive people to use this website. And you're not allowed to do it on this specific website.

I guess different people have different opinions, but I seriously wonder how such sensitive people make it in real life without going completely insane. I mean, being offended by a picture of someone giving the middle finger to no one in particular? I understand that even less than being offended by someone actually giving you the middle finger.

You have effectively forced your photo to be viewed by people who didn't want to.

That could be said about anyone and anything. But then again, they only care about things that the majority [citation needed] is offended by.

you're clearly an asshole who needs to be removed

Subjective.

How would you expect to be treated if you were wearing a T-shirt that said 'Fuck You!' on it in the doctors office? At a restaurant? The grocery store? In a class full of 5th graders?

I'd expect people to act in a manner than I deem illogical. But how is that a surprise? People seem to think that they have a right to not be offended.

Sorry, you'll have to stick to facebook until you grow up.

That's completely subjective. You're saying that someone's behavior makes them a child. They could say the exact same thing about you. Whether someone's behavior is good or bad is also likely subjective.

And if you were talking to me specifically, then that's just an assumption (and guilt by association) on your part.

I suggest stating opinions as opinions.

They can do whatever they want, but I think their decision is idiotic and I will voice my criticism. I don't use Facebook or Google+, and I don't plan to. But still, banning something that causes no tangible harm to others merely because some people find it offensive seems idiotic to me.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[Anonymus]

You're right. And their censorship was offensive enough for me to close my G+ account.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a good start.

Re:stop the typical /. nonsense

[mapkinase]

Good riddance. People who waste their time standing up for the rights stupid idiots behave like stupid idiots instead of standing up for something substantial should go somewhere else.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[mapkinase]

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2596022&cid=38527114

In certain states it's also against the law

[ArhcAngel]

I was recently stopped by a local police officer here in Texas because he thought he saw me shoot the finger at another driver ( I didn't but have from time to time ) . He informed me that it was against the law to make offensive gestures. I had never heard this so I did a little digging and discovered it was in fact...law. But these laws often use loosely defining terms like "offensive gesture". Well any gesture can be offensive depending on who interprets it. Perhaps that's why Ashley Esqueda has had a middle finger profile pic the last week or so but changed it today.

Re:In certain states it's also against the law

[cheekyjohnson]

Apparently if a majority of people find something offensive, it should be banned regardless of whether or not it inflicts any tangible harm upon them. I know these are Google's servers and they can do pretty much anything they want, but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.

Re:In certain states it's also against the law

[mjwalshe]

Ok so flipping some one the finger is illegal but Fred Phelps et al are not locked up - only in America

Fuck Google +

[Anonymous Coward]

with a rusty meathook.

A better solution

[Cro Magnon]

Photoshop any hand pictures to remove the offensive finger. Who care if they have 4 fingers on each hand? Or, technically, 3 fingers and a thumb.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan's Buraku community argues that "four-finger" pictures you argued for is discriminatory and should be taken down immediately.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[gbjbaanb]

certainly they used the same cultural bias the poster did - I'm waiting for all female profiles who have pictures of themselves with heads uncovered to be banned. Islam seems to be getting more popular every day, and vocal, so it's only a matter of time before the Google censors bow to such "politically correct" pressure.

29/12/2011

[Severus Snape]

The day Google lost the social networking game.

Re:29/12/2011

[Yvan256]

There wasn't 2011 days in december 29.

Autodetection?

[JDG1980]

So, are Google staff going through and flagging these manually, or do they have some kind of algorithm to detect whether a photo has a raised middle finger in it? I wouldn't be surprised if it was the latter, considering this is Google we're talking about. It opens up some interesting new Image Search possibilities...

Re:Autodetection?

[mjwalshe]

Probably some low level Googler did this because he has a beef with Mr Siegler - this is the same as News International Monstering people that disagree with them.

Re:Google is an American

[g0bshiTe]

Yes because we all know that the internet is the most respectful and civil meeting place in the world.

MG Siegler

[Anonymous Coward]

MG Siegler is a known self proclaimed apple "lover" and also an anti google troll. Take his words with a grain of salt. He's also the main reason I don't read TechCrunch.

Re:Google is an American

[cheekyjohnson]

The population and society in general.

And they can still only give their opinions about what is and is not civil.

The real problem I see is that some people think they have a right to not be offended. So what if someone gets offended by the middle finger (or something else)? Will that bring about the apocalypse? I say let them be offended.

we being every older than an angsty teenager mentally

Yes. Anyone with a different opinion than you is just an "angsty teenager."

finger is not really going to be missed.

That's your own opinion.

Your arguing just to argue. That's not productive to anyone.

What is productive? Agreeing with you?

What is offensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it offensive when girls make a duck face. I don't find the middle finger to be offensive.

Re:What is offensive?

[cheekyjohnson]

Whatever the majority finds offensive should be banned.

Re:What is offensive?

[BattleApple]

I wonder what the percentage really is. I don't think I know anyone that would find a middle finger picture offensive enough to complain to Google about it.

Re:What is offensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

wat? even if it's correct fact or truth?

Avoiding flagging-based attacks

[DragonWriter]

And there's your solution: flag all images as inapropriate (... or have a script do it for you...), and it becomes prohibitively expensive for them to check them all...

Simply scheduling the order of review in a way which causes people with lots of flags to get their pictures scheduled for review less frequently neatly makes it so that this attack has minimal effect on the speed with which Google can review flags of pictures by people who aren't adopting this attempt to bog the system down, without consuming substantial additional resources.

And its easy to go a step further, and include a weighting factor incorporating how reliably the users previously-reviewed flaggings were found to be pictures that Google found inappropriate so that frequent-but-accurate flaggers aren't pushed back but frequent-but-useless-to-Google flaggers are.

Given that all of this is pretty basic to effectively managing review of user-flagged inappropriate content when you have potentially a lot of content that might get flagged, whether or not you are worried about people abusing flagging as a protest against your policies, and given that Google has had facilities for flagging inappropriate content a lot longer than Google+ has been around (e.g., in blogspot), and given that this kind of data analyis and application to processes is the kind of thing Google is known for, I'd be surprised if they didn't already have something like this in place.

Thumbs up on that one!

[Anonymous Coward]

:-))

so, are crucifixes OK or not then?

[advocate_one]

because some people could be offended by others wearing them... don't laugh... this PC crap is infesting everywhere these days... Google, you idiots, you've opened yourself up to every fringe nut group with an axe to grind to complain about items in profile pictures that they find offensive...

Re:so, are crucifixes OK or not then?

[Yvan256]

Personal Computer crap?

But mine is in Latin!

[AliasMarlowe]

They can't possibly remove a profile picture showing such a knowledge of culture and degree of sophistication as the digitus impudicus.

Re:But mine is in Latin!

[mikael]

Or giving a bouquet of flowers to the Russian chick in the office, and she's not a goth either.

There's several others including the "thumbs up" sign, offensive in Arab countries, putting your palm out to say "no thanks", or the OK sign in Brazil

All Photos of People are Offensive

[Roger W Moore]

Since we know the middle finger will get banned, why not try to do as many of the other gestures as possible?

That should not be hard since some groups e.g. Hutterites hold photography of people as violating religious laws....although since they are on a web site I'm guessing not many of them will notice. Which probably explains why so many pictures turn up for Hutterites when you do a Google image search since I'm sure Google would have blocked those images if asked due to their highly offensive nature.

Learn to play well with others or suffer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to criticize Google for doing it but it's part of being a grown up. I for one support our Google overlords.

Re:Learn to play well with others or suffer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Approving of censorship is not part of being a grown up, and is in fact mutually exclusive with it.

Re:Google is an American

[mjwalshe]

oh come on 90% of googlers have a hard time understanding there are other countries than the USA

Hmm

[lightknight]

Another sign that Google is losing control -> loosing the morality police on average users.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sign that Google is losing control -> loosing the morality police on average users.

No - it's just another demonstration of how gullible the average Slashdot "reader" is!

Just like the removal of accounts in fake names and petrol stations catching fire due to mobile phones.... It never happened!

Urban legends, no matter how much you'd like to believe them - are still "legends". Sheeesh.

Almost a question

[kqc7011]

What about a woman showing her face or any other part of her body not covered by a burka?

They should just be honest about the reasons

[geminidomino]

Unlike most of the posts here, I support the rule, if not the reasoning which, I think we all know, is bullshit.

The real reason is along the lines of:

"If we let all of you idiots use your profile pictures to show what an unoriginal, angsty little twaffle you are, then the people who might actually want to join and add to the community are going to be run off. Not because they're afraid of naughty hand gestures that they doubtless throw around like rice at a wedding on every commute home from work, but because they'll go somewhere that it's not a given that they can expect their walls/circles/whatever to be flooded with shitty My Chemical Romance lyrics and whining about boyfriends forgetting your 8-week anniversary of copping a feel in a Jiffy Lube."

That, at least, I could respect.

huh??

[lkcl]

hey fuck you too, google+! http://lkcl.net/SANY0051.JPG

I made a gesture to the google street car cam.

[Tyr07]

U mad google?

Fuck Vic Gundotra

[Anonymous Coward]

Vic, you are a hypocrite and an idiot. Fuck you and your stupid 'identity platform'. Why hasn't this stupid clown been fired yet? He was already alienating users when he was in charge of Android and continues doing so now that he is in charge on Social. Stupid jerk-off.

--
There is a new arrogant asshole in town!

I hope ...

[PPH]

... they haven't blacklisted the gesture involving dropping your trousers, bending over and showing the camera a big gaper.

If so, I'm really going to miss the Goatse Guy.

Hummm... a Thumbs-Up picture is offensive to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hummm... a Thumbs-Up picture is offensive to some cultures... So when will Google start becoming nanny for these types of images too. stupid, Stupid, STUPID!

Re:Google is an American

[CanHasDIY]

The real problem I see is that some people think they have a right to not be offended.

This, a million times over.

Consequently, if you actually read and comprehend the Constitution and Amendments, you'll note that within the First Amendment, there is no limitation specified on freedom of expression; in fact, the First specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing any sort of inhibition, evidenced by use of the phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." Essentially, everyone has the right to be offensive, and if one finds another's expression offensive, one has the right to stop paying attention; however, one does not have the right to silence said offender.

In order to preempt the inevitable straw-man of, "Google isn't the government," I contend that any institution that fails to honor the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution is not one any patriotic American should be doing business with. Does this mean I intend on cancelling my Google+ accounts? Perhaps, but first I intend to use my First Amendment rights of free expression to join the visual protest, thus informing Google of my chagrin, and subsequently offering them the opportunity to do right.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[CanHasDIY]

"common sense" is seldom all that common, and never makes any sense.

Fight Oppression with Avatar Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

The Icon of the human with a black stripe across it's mouth (gagged) that starts this post (top) "says" it all. If you disagree with Google's Middle Digit Policy, then photoshop your profile avatar to 'wear' black tape (or take a new picture of yourself with a black tape across your mouth (No H8 Style even). There. You've "expressed" your anger at Google's Censorship. -1.

Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity is!

[Xeranar]

I mean clearly I should be free to display idiotic hand gestures to anybody in my circle and those who search me! GRR! Ok, really, it's google service and their decision to not let you have the middle finger as a profile picture is their business, something I passively support since we're all big boys and girls who need to use our words and not come across as popped collar pink shirt wearing frat losers. I know freedom of speech is a vague concept most of us understand but the middle finger isn't really protected and google is within their rights to do this.

Re:Google is an American

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who decides what's civil?"

The dictionary seems to imply that "civil" refers to all things not "martial". So I guess the answer is that everything is civil, provided it is not done by the military.

Re:Google is an American

[Concerned Onlooker]

" I say let them be offended."

Yes, I suppose so. And I assume that you will feel the same way about things that offend you. I agree that censorship and repression is more dangerous than being offended. However, that view should also leave me the right to criticize Mr. Middle Finger for being juvenile, obtuse and crass.

Whether you like it or not, societal standards do exist. I'd say that mostly they exist to help us just get along and have something that looks like a common ground on which to base daily interaction. That doesn't mean everyone has to act a particular way all the time. It just means that when in public try to be considerate. Save the junior high school language and gestures for when you're with your buddies.

Immature

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's rather immature of Google.

Hows that do no evil thing going for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hows that do no evil thing going for ya?

Re:Google is an American

[cheekyjohnson]

However, that view should also leave me the right to criticize Mr. Middle Finger for being juvenile, obtuse and crass.

Indeed. I do not believe they should be free to censor your opinions (that they're "juvenile, obtuse, and crass"), either

Whether you like it or not, societal standards do exist.

They exist, but that doesn't mean they're good. For things like this, that cause no actual harm to anyone (depending on how the other person acts), I see no problem with. I'd have absolutely no problem with everyone going around giving everyone else the middle finger in public. I'm not easily offended.

Save the junior high school language and gestures for when you're with your buddies.

Or, if I wanted to, I could use them all the time (I'd prefer not to use them at all, though). But it's just your opinion that it's unfunny, offensive, or restricted to high schoolers (or with your "buddies").

Never had one

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, I never had a Facebook account either. I don't see the allure.

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[cheekyjohnson]

idiotic

Subjective.

Yes, Google is technically allowed to do this if they so wish. But they're not exempt from criticism. I don't even have an account on any social networking websites, and I still think that this decision is stupid. Were it up to me (but it's not), people would be able to do things such as this without consequence.

popped collar pink shirt wearing frat losers

Sounds like you're lumping one group (people who display the middle finger) in with an unrelated group.

most of us understand but the middle finger isn't really protected

Free speech only really applies to the government. So no, Google is allowed to do this. But the government (congress) doing it would be another story.

Centralized Information Authority

[Bob9113]

The problem here is not that Google is doing this bit of culture control this time. The bigger picture is the same thing Eben Moglen brought up a couple years ago -- centralization of information authority. Until we get off of the centralized systems of social communication, we will continue to have centralized information authorities deciding what we can and cannot say based on their best interests, not ours.

And here's the hard part of this: We're the ones who have to do it. We have to make it happen. We, Slashdotters, are the most perfectly equipped community to do the work that needs to be done -- there is no-one more perfectly suited that we can hope will solve this. I've been doing a bit of work on it, but not enough. We all need to work harder to get our culture out of the hands of a small number of centralized entities.

And this isn't just about flipping the bird -- info centralization also makes astroturfing easier, makes spam harder to filter, makes surveillance and profiling easier (for the corps, the cops, and the perps), and generally turns cultural conformity into a competitive sport.

I need to do more to fix this.

Re:Google is an American

[twotacocombo]

Who decides what's civil? The population and society in general. That's where our laws, ethics, and manners come from. We define it.

You speak as if this is a single group of people with a unified, collective idea of what is just and ethical. I think taking a quick gander at the news will tell you otherwise. The United States, let alone the world as a whole, hasn't been able to completely agree on anything, ever. So your saying everybody decides on the laws, ethics, etc, is either extremely naive, or just plain trolling. Also, at least here in America, 'we' do not decide on the laws, 'they' decide on the laws. There's a difference. Just take a look at SOPA, for example..

The simple point is......

[Anonymous Coward]

They say they are open and want to become the bigger social network to give you what you need!

And then they do not!

The whole problem is with Google is that they say one thing and do more the the complete opposite.

Re:Google is an American

[modecx]

That's the point. Google is a global entity, and such being the case, it's asinine for them to police what is appropriate because the very idea of "society in general" at the global scale is itself a non sequitur.

The middle finger might be vaguely offensive to we westerners, but maybe it's a symbol of welcome to some tribe in the Amazon! Conversely, the A-OK sign is fine and dandy here, but in Greece and Brazil, not so much. In many Arab countries, it's a threatening gesture. In SCUBA language, it's equivalent to "status normal", but in some South American countries it's a symbol for the anus / "you're a faggot". Likewise with the thumbs up--basically equivalent to "up-yours" in Iran, but generally a very positive sign elsewhere.

Say your profile picture is of you at the beech, relaxing on a lounge, showing the bottom of your sandals/feet to the camera. To a westerner, we wouldn't think twice about it, but that's highly offensive in more than a couple cultures.

A major reason to not use google+

[forgottenusername]

If you have an android device, or even an important email / google voice account, getting banned would be a nightmare. So now you're looking at multiple accounts, which loses the whole 'integrated' advantage.

Google needs to take a serious look at their banning policies and how they have ripple effects. Being banned from their social media shouldn't affect any of your other accounts. Email abuses (like spamming) are a completely different transgression than not meeting google's (apparently puritan, also seemingly arbitrary) social media standards / rules.

political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

will be the end of all that is unique and interesting. welcome to the corporate-government rule of the internet.

Re:Google is an American

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same person who said the following:

we being every older than an angsty teenager mentally

Or PhD morons who like to call themselves doctor knowing full well no one else in the world things a PhD makes you a 'doctor' (Yes, I know it technically does). [1]

Every time I hear a PhD of Something Stupid, or a preacher refer to him/herself as doctor I just want to punch them in the face for blatantly lying. [1]

Does his use of non-sequiturs to defend his desire to use physical violence make him appear "older than an angsty teenager mentally"?

[1]

Re:Google is an American

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure if you actually meant to write this or not, but the way your post is worded, it seems to imply that American understanding of morality is what "creates civility", being superior to other "uncivil" cultures in that regard. I think it's precisely why your post is modded Troll.

Or the "OK" sign

[Anonymous Coward]

The American(?) "OK" sign means "asshole" in just about every other country (although mostly Asian). Are they going to block that too?

Hell, they should probably block any picture that has hands in it at all because they could be gang signs.

Re:Some other examples of culturally specific offe

[aztektum]

I just changed my profile pic to one where I'm showing my palm, sole of my shoe, and patting my head.

I have no clue how to incorporate those other things at the same time.

The 5 people

[Kevin108]

that use Google Plus will have to worry about this PC nonsense. Linus Torvalds, be careful!

No one has the right to not be offended.

[js_sebastian]

Offensive content, on the other hand, is near impossible to police on a world-wide level. It is impossible to know who is offended by what, the number of things that offend someone somewhere is much greater than those that do not offend anyone anywhere, the policing is horribly expensive, false positives abound and the benefits gained from this approach are unknown at best.

That's why Google's approach is wrong, again.

No. It is wrong because freedom of expression includes the right to offend others. Or to put it clearly, freedom of expression does not stop just because what I am saying is offensive to some people.

The fact that a prohibition on "offensive content" cannot practically be enforced on a social network is a relief, but the thing is, they shouldn't be trying. If you don't want to see someone's posts, just kick him out of your circles.

Re:No one has the right to not be offended.

[NeutronCowboy]

You're confusing the rights of the government with the rights of individuals or corporations. A government can't restrict your freedom of expression, as that destroys the legitimacy of the government. Corporations and individuals on the other hand, being as they operate on private property, can institute any rules they want as long as the rules apply to everyone equally and only cover actions, not states.

Like so many things in life...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an easy and simple fix, people. Give Google the finger. Leave them. Stop using Google's (lousy anyway, much of the time) results, (paid for by advertisers to come out on top which is really just a form of spam anyways...) and their "services" and switch to something else instead. Close all Gmail accounts, and use an alternative, they are out there. Then when they start loosing people left and right, they'll get the message.

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[a_hanso]

Google's just making sure that we're all in compliance of their motto, is all.

Now they must change the name too

[Anonymous Coward]

Google + Taliban = Googliban+

Give the user control

[jejones]

Google should give the user control. In my estimation, someone who puts up a profile photo giving the viewer the finger is likely to be a jerk that I'll have no interest in, so I'll avoid that person, and would like tools a la the old newsreader killfiles so that I'm not troubled with that person's output, be it visual, text, or audio-- but that's just my opinion; I'd rather a social network that I use not make that decision for me or other users.

What are the avatar owners trying to say?

[msobkow]

I don't understand what anyone would be trying to accomplish by flipping the bird at their friends, families, relatives, the public, and complete strangers without even sharing a mutal "Hello" first.

What does such rudeness protest or demonstrate except a nasty and immature attitude to society at large?

It's a sad state of society we've come to in the name of free speech. Somewhere along the way, the freedom to speak your mind was misinterpreted as the right to offend everyone for no reason at all. Yet at the same time, I strongly believe that the fact someone might be offended by another's beliefs or actions does not give them the right to suppress the beliefs and actions of that individual.

The right to freedom of speech is the guarantee that someone is going to offend you. But while I have all the respect in the world for someone who stands up for their beliefs, even if I disagree with them and find their beliefs distasteful or offensive, I just can't bring myself to respect anyone who introduces themselves to the world by flipping the bird.

You should have outgrown such angst before you finished high school.

Re:What are the avatar owners trying to say?

[cheekyjohnson]

What does such rudeness protest or demonstrate except a nasty and immature attitude to society at large?

Subjective.

the freedom to speak your mind was misinterpreted as the right to offend everyone for no reason at all.

And some people seem to be under the impression that they have a right to not be offended by things that harm no one in any way.

The right to freedom of speech is the guarantee that someone is going to offend you.

Shouldn't happen unless you're oversensitive. At least, I don't think so.

You should have outgrown such angst before you finished high school.

Subjective. Different people have different senses of humor. Just because you don't like pictures where someone is giving the finger doesn't mean no one else does or that only people in a certain group like it.

Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat.

ah yeah oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

i want to create a g+ account just so i can post a pic with the finger...
or i can give google the finger by not using their service...:)

Don't want same social circle as parents

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a good point but that is exactly why I don't use Facebook. A person can't have all their social groups joined together. I don't want my mother, grandmother, sister, boss, etc all seeing all my other social interactions and in some cases I really don't want to see theirs.

Networks are going to have to partition themselves by age.

Well now

[cHiphead]

I was totally ready to rage on G+ until I read it was MG Siegler, now I'm going to change my profile to a middle finger, but not at G+, specifically at MG S because he's such a two bit whiny douchebag of a TechCrunch columnist. He is the reason I rarely read TC... all potatoes, no meat. I can't fault Google for finding any possible reason to fuck with him. ;)

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[Xeranar]

This is so cute....I love how you make a huge exception to the rule to justify the use of the middle finger as some sort of epic statement about the world. It's a singular hand gesture that means "fuck you." It isn't an epic statement about anything and the proliferation of it instead of intelligent conversation is a true issue in society. Freedom of Speech applies across the board hence why we have cases of libel and slander. The problem is the supreme court ruled fighting words (i.e. insults and swears) unprotected by the constitution. Thus this is still within google's purview and rightfully so. Making it some sort of greater demonstration does nothing, they aren't taking down "Free Tibet" images or something controversial in that vain, they're keeping their service free of filth as an extension of their choice to run it.

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[cheekyjohnson]

justify the use of the middle finger as some sort of epic statement about the world

Straw man. I didn't say any such thing.

The problem is the supreme court ruled fighting words (i.e. insults and swears) unprotected by the constitution.

The courts could rule just about anything. That doesn't mean they're right.

I disagree with such a decision (not that my disagreement holds much power) if they really even decided that at all. Anyone could get mad about anything and interpret just about anything as "fighting words." Most people that I've seen who are against things such as threats probably wouldn't deem giving an opinion (giving someone, or in this case, no one in particular, the middle finger) as a threat.

The fact that some people are what I would deem "hotheads" and resort to violence over every little thing someone says doesn't mean that the speech that upsets them needs to be banned. I think they should stop being so oversensitive.

filth

Subjective. The fact that you do not like it does not indicate that it is objectively bad.

Again, I wonder how people who are offended by a picture of someone giving the middle finger to no one in particular function in society at all. It's like they believe they have a right to not be offended or something.

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[Xeranar]

If you are not suggesting that the middle finger is an explicit act of revolution or resistance you're admitting it is simple offense and thus should be policed like anything else. For the record go search "Fighting words Supreme Court" and the decision will come up, it doesn't protect offensive statements and threats clearly meant to incite violence. Of course simple statements of fact are protected but as stated offenses like that are not.

Your personal disagreement is about as subjective on my perception of filth. In other words, who cares what you think? I surely don't, I was merely pointing out society at large seems to concur with me on this simple issue. I do walk through life assuming I won't get mugged, insulted, or shown something I don't particularly find savory for the most part. I know I won't successfully navigate such a world for the most part but I am pleased as punch that Google has decided to police their own social network over something obscene. If you don't like it, oh well, I deal with thousands of things I don't like. But as we've come to the conclusion of, neither of our opinions mean much.

Re:Damn you google for deciding what an obscenity

[cheekyjohnson]

If you are not suggesting that the middle finger is an explicit act of revolution or resistance you're admitting it is simple offense and thus should be policed like anything else.

False dilemma. There are more than two choices. I don't think that the middle finger is an "explicit act of revolution or resistance" (but other people may), and I don't think it should be "policed." I don't think anything should happen to someone who gives someone else the middle finger.

For the record go search "Fighting words Supreme Court" and the decision will come up, it doesn't protect offensive statements and threats clearly meant to incite violence.

One, I seriously don't care what the supreme court thinks. Two, giving someone the middle finger isn't necessarily meant to incite violence. It could just be a statement of opinion. I'd like to know the supreme court's decision about people showing pictures of themselves giving the middle finger at no one in particular, though. Is that illegal anywhere?

As I said, the fact that some people are hotheads and can't control their anger doesn't mean that a word/gesture needs to be banned.

Of course simple statements of fact are protected but as stated offenses like that are not.

What are "offenses"? I'm not offended by the middle finger at all, and I don't care what it was 'meant' to mean when someone came up with it.

And this is on a website, in a picture, probably directed at no one in particular. Who on Earth is going to fight someone (track them down) over that? Maybe, just maybe, that would happen if someone was seriously oversensitive and someone specifically gave them the middle finger in person. But fighting because someone on a website put a picture of themselves giving the middle finger to no one in particular? I find that highly unlikely (and I don't really care if it did make someone fight to begin with).

personal disagreement

subjective

Well, yes. I think that's quite obvious.

In other words, who cares what you think?

I'll say the same about you.

I was merely pointing out society at large seems to concur with me on this simple issue.

Citation needed. I need to know the number of people that are offended by middle fingers that aren't personally directed at them. Or, actually, even middle fingers in general. Even ones directed at them.

Since you stated that as a fact, where is your citation?

I do walk through life assuming I won't get mugged, insulted, or shown something I don't particularly find savory for the most part.

I suppose it is easy to get accustomed to what I would define as "idiocy." People are sometimes violent, after all. Can't do anything that would displease them.

If you don't like it, oh well, I deal with thousands of things I don't like.

Well, in the end, it's Google's decision. I don't think I've denied this once. But if enough people complain, and if enough people get tired of their policies, they'll probably have no choice but to change them. We'll see.

But as we've come to the conclusion of, neither of our opinions mean much.

I don't think anything "means much."