Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Instagram Reenables GIF Sharing After GIPHY Promises No More Racism (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the under-review dept.

Earlier this month, Instagram and Snapchat dropped their GIPHY integrations when a racial slur slipped into the company's online database. Now Instagram is bringing GIPHY Integration back after GIPHY confirmed it's reviewed its GIF library four times and will preemptively review any new GIFs it adds. Snapchat has yet to bring the service back. TechCrunch reports: "We've been in close contact with GIPHY throughout this process and we're confident that they have put measures in place to ensure that Instagram users have a good experience," an Instagram spokesperson told TechCrunch. GIPHY told TechCrunch in a statement: "To anyone who was affected: we're sorry. We take full responsibility for this recent event and under no circumstances does GIPHY condone or support this kind of content. We have also finished a full investigation into our content moderations systems and processes and have made specific changes to our process to ensure something like this does not happen again." The racial slur was spotted by a user in the UK around March 8th. "We've shared a censored version of the image below, but warning, it still includes graphic content that may be offensive to some users," reports TechCrunch.

38 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Walled gardens by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There really seems to be a market for these walled gardens. I don't get it, but then I browse Slashdot at -1. I guess enough people prefer bland innocuous pap to freedom. Well, that's people for you.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    1. Re:Walled gardens by dryriver · · Score: 1, Funny

      Real men browse Slashdot at -2. Oh, the fun you are missing. =)

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    2. Re:Walled gardens by haemish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, "real men" have better things to do with their lives than wade through drivel. I browse at +2

    3. Re:Walled gardens by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe that?

    4. Re:Walled gardens by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well it's for people who have never seen goatse or don't want their children seeing it.

      as for racism, is picture of a frog can be racist I don't think they can win that battle.

      donald trump as a racist hero? michael jackson? sure. can do.

      but then again, it's a fucken service for fucken GIFS IN 2018! it really ain't for the smartest lot.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re: Walled gardens by BKX · · Score: 2

      Real, manly, neckbearded men browse at -1, although we recognize that the higher pointed posts are usually better. We don't have any problems with seeing absolute drivel and garbage in the hope of finding gold that goes against the grain. It happens all the time. If you want a walled garden approach, I say, "Grow up and grow a pair."

      Besides, on this site, there aren't enough posts, generally, to need to cull the shit.

    6. Re:Walled gardens by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Mostly people just want to feel good?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Walled gardens by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure. But deferring gratification for long-term gain is precisely what separates humans from animals. Broadening your experience of the world, good and bad, so that you can grow in unexpected ways is an early part of that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re: Walled gardens by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true (ie animals are also capable of delayed gratification), but I grant your point. Then we might say that the problem is one of information: people don't realize why they should delay gratification here.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: Walled gardens by BKX · · Score: 1

      That's great. I literally loled

  2. 1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by Q-Hack! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The concept of thought police, scares me more than anonymous racism.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I think I understand it too well. The fact that you can't see the parallels in society today, is quite telling though.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about bakeries being required to reproduce certain messages?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think it's terrible.

      But I also think racism and bigotry are terrible.

      The real question is which one of these two society would rather have, because we can't have both. Either you don't get to discriminate which means you'll occasionally have to serve people you don't like as equals to those you do, or you do get to discriminate, and racism and bigotry get a pass by society.

      Personally, I feel limitations on being a bigoted/racist asshole is preferable to totally free expression, because nobody chooses to be black or gay. Everyone is free to choose a profession where they don't have limitations placed on their free speech.

      My preference would be that people stop being hateful assholes. In the long run, I think we'll be more likely to get there if people are limited in being bigoted, racist assholes publicly and instead have to do it behind closed doors. When you grow up seeing everyone largely treated as equals, you're probably more likely to actually treat them as equals. While it's painful for people who want to be outright assholes to certain groups of people at the present time, I can't help but think it will be better for everyone in the long run.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman. Nobody said anything about "parallels in society today".

      We're just wondering what the blooming fuck you think 1984 and thought police have to do with THIS SPECIFIC STORY.

      Giphy removing a racist image is not an example of government censorship or thought police, you hyperbolic twat.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    5. Re:1984 isn't meant to be a how to guide by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Thank you for spouting idiotic non-sequiturs in place of actual discussion, AC.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  3. Overly Sensitive Much? by Templer421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Grow up and toughen up a bit Millennials.

    The Universe IS trying to kill you everyday, plan accordingly.

    1. Re:Overly Sensitive Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with hate, you should not be so closed minded. Are you some kind of Hateophobic?

    2. Re:Overly Sensitive Much? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one is saying life isn't difficult for most people in various ways, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity / skin color, etc. But maybe it's not a bad thing to do what we collectively can to make it a little less unpleasant where the opportunity presents itself. Yes, the Universe eventually kills us all. That's why we should try to make the most of our brief existence, bringing joy, happiness, and hope to both ourselves AND others, rather than trying to tear others down.

      I see nothing wrong with a private platform deciding that they don't want to spread hateful messages. That being said, I'd probably oppose the government demanding the same actions of a private entity on 1st amendment grounds.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Overly Sensitive Much? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      look, that's all fine and dandy, but the intent in which it is posted is what matters more than it being a picture of some dude in a KKK outfit dancing with a frog.

      the fault is at the older generations that watched goatse and laughed their asses off thinking that they shouldn't be showing that stuff to millienials. also some millenials want that.

      it's the normies really, they can't be bothered with thinking for themselves - they can't be bothered to look up and make the decision of if the person who posted something just funnying around or genuinely racist - and if they are genuinely racist, they don't want to know it! they don't want to know if people they interact with are horrible persons. it's the intellectual equivalent of the church turning a blind eye on molestation and just banning discussion about it within the church instead of doing something to it.

      that's also why millenials grow up to be racist, sjw or otherwise intolerant, because they're not exposed to the shit. their shit radars haven't developed, so they think that they and others need protection from what they think is shit - but that just leads them to having dysfunctional shit radars.

      you can't make a joke with a frog? could you re-enact a monty python sketch making fun of hitler and post it? I seriously doubt that.

      and how the fuck am I supposed to laugh at neonazis, antifa and flat earthers if they wouldn't be able to post their shit? it's not like them posting their shit stops them from being idiots - stopping them from posting it further enforces their idea in their head that them being what they are matters. like, average person doesn't give a fuck of either side in a neonazi vs. antifa fight rally - what they see is two groups who get together biannually or annually to fight just for sake of fighting, those two shit groups NEED each other and they just coss a toin to choose in which so called ideology they belong in. you try to suppress it then it just makes them feel special.

      seriously average person wouldn't even be able to tell which side is the nazis in a normal fight-rally. they're both there just to fight. same with football hooligans, it's not like they care about who won the match - the match isn't the point, the rush for doing "something for the cause" is, removing their posts is equivalent to the police detaining them at a fight rally: it is the end goal of the whole meetup.

      shadilay! FREEDOM!

      gnaa also isn't racist. or sexis. or homophobic. it's just gnaa.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Overly Sensitive Much? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The Universe IS trying to kill you everyday, plan accordingly.

      No it isn't. It's simply utterly indifferent.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Overly Sensitive Much? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      But who decides what's "hateful"?

      Once rules against "hateful" content are established, you had best hope people you disagree with aren't put in charge, lest you find you are silenced.

      Your argument is precisely why I think it's fine for a private individual or corporation to set rules as they see fit*. But it would be a bad idea for the government to impose those rules on us from above. I don't give two tweets if a corporation tries to "silence" me. I can pick a new corporation to do business with, or start my own damned company. I don't have that choice with the government.

      * There are obviously some caveats here, such as Common Carriers and their restrictions, or not setting laws that violate national laws or regulations.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read this a few times trying to decipher what other possible reasons there could be for it, but I'm left without any. Seriously, what the fuck?

    tl;DR - Rather then think and act with some rational thought process, a few butthurt liberal sites pulled every image hosted by GIPHY over one. It's like banning imgur.

    Snowflakes, get the fuck off the internet if you can't handle yourselves.

    Fun fact, "Google's" is used as an alternative to the "N" word. Why? Purely to illustrate the hypocrisy in censorship. There _many_ other like examples. You can't ban them all this isn't Pokemon.

    Further hypocrisy, you can't even say that on Slashdot. "Filter error: Lameness filter encountered". Truly a sad state of the Internet.

  5. Instagram And Snapchat Were So Wholesome Before... by dryriver · · Score: 2

    My soul is now broken beyond repair...

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  6. Re: The ban itself is racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody more racist than the Left.

  7. Re:The ban itself is racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Funny how you ignore the blurred out N*****. You're feigned ignorance comes off as kinda racist. Or maybe it's just real ignorance in which case, hey this is a learning experience for you and now you know. So next time give it a rest.

  8. That's what qualifies as offensive nowdays? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    Had I grown up in these times I would have never graduated high school, unless the prison I was sent to had high school classes.

    1. Re:That's what qualifies as offensive nowdays? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Interesting

      November 14, 1982. Proof that time travel is real

  9. Re:The ban itself is racist by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Troll

    Funny how you ignore the blurred out N*****.

    ... And the drawing of the black woman immediately underneath.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  10. Keep Up by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I haven't been keeping up with the news, but are we all switching from Facebook to Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

    1. Re:Keep Up by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      but are we all switching from Facebook to Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

      I hope so, just because of the sheer stupid irony of it. Instagram is owned by Facebook.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. "but warning..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "...but warning, it still includes graphic content that may be offensive to some users" - but what about the victims of the crimes? Are they less important than those who feel offended over a word?

  12. They need our protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because they are so fragile that the slightest perceived provocation drives them into a rage. This is why in the USA African Americans assult whites ~200 times more than whites attack blacks.

    Whites should know better than to be near their personal space.

    https://duckduckgo.com/html/?t...

    1. Re:They need our protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That just means African Americans are superior. Nature and natural selection ensure the most violent go on to breed. A society that is not violent and cohesive will be replaced with one that is.

      Crackers need to take a lesson from African Americans and become more violent.

      I'm not advocating racism. African Americans and Crackers should join forces and become a multi ethnic nation of violent men spilling over the borders of neighboring nations in order to take kill their men and steal their women.

      This post is liberal approved since it endorses natural selection and Darwin. The left loves Darwin.

  13. Re:Black people say nigger all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've seen a parent (me) accused of abuse and sexual harassment for using the wrong non-gendered pronoun for a child's acquaintance. The "wrong non-gendered pronoun" was the word "they" for a teen who's changed gender 3 times in the last 3 years. Any attempt to straighten out the kid about language is taken as a "tool of the patriarchy", by the child's mother, who has 3 master's degrees but is *much* too busy with the SJW crowd of coffeehouse klatches to do *anything*, including their own laundry or putting gas in the car.

  14. We promise no more racism by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    The wording of the subject seems a bit off. Makes it seem like the situation was: GIPHY: Please let us back, we won't be racists anymore!

  15. Re:double standard by RogL · · Score: 1

    >> I think the best solution is to let everyone say and think whatever they want and work it out among themselves.

    Hear hear!

    An insightful AC - will wonders never cease!

  16. Re:Black people say nigger all the time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The end result of what you want is a bunch of black people banned from the service.

    I didn't say anything about "banned". I wasn't talking about official policies or any particular social media.

    I was talking about living in society. If you are not sure if you should say a particular racial slur, you should not say it. How is that in any way controversial to anyone but Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.