Even animals, who do not have artificial constructs such as law, recognize territorial and other "intellectual property" rights
That's not quite what I meant. If you're talking about "property" in nature, it just 'belongs' to whoever is strongest. There is no system to take it back if you lose it. Just your own strength. There are no real property rights. Those are created by the law. You don't have a 'right' to anything.
Stealing is stealing - all theft involves infringing on someone else's rights. Calling stealing software "infringement" was one of the stupider things we did.
I disagree for reasons that I've already stated. You can say, "stealing is stealing" as much as you want, but that isn't going to make me agree with you.
And it's the same when you steal someone's software.
How so?
"job infringement"
"They got the job that I wanted." Well, you did ask me what I would rather say, right? I think by most people's definition, I happen to be quite pedantic.
it's just bits in a computer
I never even made that argument. I never even said that bits can't be property. I believe that property (or at least property rights) is an artificial construct created by the law. I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with copyright law, although I do not believe we should have it. Right now though, copyright law exists. I see it as a way for artists to maximize potential gain.
I never said that you couldn't harm someone by stealing something they already have (like by emptying bank accounts online). But in the case of copyright infringement, no such thing is happening. It's just a copy. No one's bank account is emptied, no one's time is wasted (by the pirate), and there's generally not any interaction with the artist.
"Infringement" is just a fancy word for stealing.
I disagree.
If, in your opinion, it should be called "stealing" (and it probably technically is called that by many people), then say so. But I do suggest not stating it as a fact.
I thought that would be "trespassing." At the very least, I've never heard anyone say something about stealing when someone they didn't want on their lawn was on their lawn.
It's only become confusing because people have labeled it "copyright infringement" instead of "theft".
No, by it being confusing, I meant that the average person who knows nothing about what the act of copyright infringement even entails could get the wrong idea of what it is. They could equate it to the theft of real property.
According to your logic, I should be able to hire you to paint a house, then not pay you - after all, you are not deprived of anything you didn't have before.
You didn't 'steal' his time, but you have harmed him in some way. You've explicitly, through your own actions, got him to waste his time.
Who is "we"? I don't think I'd say such a thing. I believe calling copyright infringement theft is a good way to get the opposition to ignore you and confuse matters.
If I steal your time, do I come into possession of all that extra time I stole? If I steal your idea, are you deprived of it? If I steal your identity, do I actually come into possession of it, and REALLY become you, and you suddenly lack an identity? If I steal your freedom (say, through fraud, by identifying you as the criminal who did $X, when I know otherwise), do I have MORE freedom than I did before?
I think that's a good point. I'll try to refrain from claiming that anyone can steal such things.
Theft can encompass many things, both material and non-material.
Except that, especially in the case of copyright infringement, it may confuse those who know nothing about it. When they think of theft, they probably think of someone breaking into a house and actually stealing property (or something such as that).
then you can't assume that they wanted the software?
At the very least, they probably wanted to try it. Whether they would have bought it or not is another matter entirely.
You stole that car.
Indeed. You deprived someone of their property. Now let's get back on topic and start talking about copyright infringement.
at your computer and pirating seen differently than walking in and stealing a boxed product from a store?
Is this a serious question? In one scenario, there may or may not have been a lost sale (and not everyone believes this is actual harm). No actual property was lost.
In the other scenario, actual property was lost (stolen).
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.
and we accept that because it contributes to our feeling of safety and comfort
That doesn't mean that we need to accept every form of 'regulation' simply because we like to have it in other areas. Not all of it makes sense.
And it's not only the potential for abuse that matters. It's how destructive the abuse is that also matters.
that's because its up to the user, and most users aren't experts in computer security.
They don't need to be experts in computer security. They just need to learn how to use a computer without being idiots.
those that defend freedom to use a computer for whatever they like are in a sense admitting that they would like to reserve the right to use it for questionable purposes
I'd say that most of them are saying, "Yes, this could be used for illegal purposes. However, it is also very useful for doing other things. Therefore, going overboard and trying to stop a few people from doing illegal things by ruining the technology for everyone isn't worth it."
everyone knows that downloading movies is illegal
Who is this "everyone"? Not all countries have the same laws.
so how can preventing the illegal download of movies from the internet be seen as wrong?
This isn't always true, but from what I've seen, people usually say that the methods they use to stop people from downloading copyrighted material is what is wrong. Their methods usually hurt innocent people.
collapses from a deluge of ddos attacks, malware and kiddie porn
Collapses? That sounds highly unrealistic. And how could it possibly collapse from "kiddie porn"? I'd rather take those "risks" than end up like China.
I think people are overly paranoid about the potential for abuse here. The effects simply aren't that large, either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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+?
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Even animals, who do not have artificial constructs such as law, recognize territorial and other "intellectual property" rights
That's not quite what I meant. If you're talking about "property" in nature, it just 'belongs' to whoever is strongest. There is no system to take it back if you lose it. Just your own strength. There are no real property rights. Those are created by the law. You don't have a 'right' to anything.
Stealing is stealing - all theft involves infringing on someone else's rights. Calling stealing software "infringement" was one of the stupider things we did.
I disagree for reasons that I've already stated. You can say, "stealing is stealing" as much as you want, but that isn't going to make me agree with you.
Your misuse of the term "real property" just makes my point
Okay. Physical belongings (like a television).
Theft is theft. Makes no difference whether it's title to land, your car, or software.
It makes no difference? It does to me. In the case of copyright infringement, I see no theft. You seem to be trying to state your opinion as a fact.
And it's the same when you steal someone's software.
How so?
"job infringement"
"They got the job that I wanted." Well, you did ask me what I would rather say, right? I think by most people's definition, I happen to be quite pedantic.
it's just bits in a computer
I never even made that argument. I never even said that bits can't be property. I believe that property (or at least property rights) is an artificial construct created by the law. I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with copyright law, although I do not believe we should have it. Right now though, copyright law exists. I see it as a way for artists to maximize potential gain.
I never said that you couldn't harm someone by stealing something they already have (like by emptying bank accounts online). But in the case of copyright infringement, no such thing is happening. It's just a copy. No one's bank account is emptied, no one's time is wasted (by the pirate), and there's generally not any interaction with the artist.
"Infringement" is just a fancy word for stealing.
I disagree.
If, in your opinion, it should be called "stealing" (and it probably technically is called that by many people), then say so. But I do suggest not stating it as a fact.
For most people
Then I disagree with most people, I guess.
"You're infringing on my lawn - get off my lawn!"
I thought that would be "trespassing." At the very least, I've never heard anyone say something about stealing when someone they didn't want on their lawn was on their lawn.
It's only become confusing because people have labeled it "copyright infringement" instead of "theft".
No, by it being confusing, I meant that the average person who knows nothing about what the act of copyright infringement even entails could get the wrong idea of what it is. They could equate it to the theft of real property.
and that the government is limiting our rights
I don't think I've ever said that. Because, at least right now (where I live), no such 'right' exists (legally, that is).
According to your logic, I should be able to hire you to paint a house, then not pay you - after all, you are not deprived of anything you didn't have before.
You didn't 'steal' his time, but you have harmed him in some way. You've explicitly, through your own actions, got him to waste his time.
Therefore, you must also agree that it is valid to call copyright infringement stealing.
How did you come to that conclusion? The fact that he supposedly agreed with one of your points doesn't mean he has to agree with the rest.
We say someone "stole" state secrets.
Who is "we"? I don't think I'd say such a thing. I believe calling copyright infringement theft is a good way to get the opposition to ignore you and confuse matters.
If I steal your time, do I come into possession of all that extra time I stole? If I steal your idea, are you deprived of it? If I steal your identity, do I actually come into possession of it, and REALLY become you, and you suddenly lack an identity? If I steal your freedom (say, through fraud, by identifying you as the criminal who did $X, when I know otherwise), do I have MORE freedom than I did before?
I think that's a good point. I'll try to refrain from claiming that anyone can steal such things.
Theft can encompass many things, both material and non-material.
Except that, especially in the case of copyright infringement, it may confuse those who know nothing about it. When they think of theft, they probably think of someone breaking into a house and actually stealing property (or something such as that).
I'd just called it "copyright infringement."
justifiable
Whether it is or is not justifiable is, I believe, subjective.
COPYING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS NOT YOUR RIGHT
Did he actually say that it was? It looked like he just said it wasn't stealing.
then you can't assume that they wanted the software?
At the very least, they probably wanted to try it. Whether they would have bought it or not is another matter entirely.
You stole that car.
Indeed. You deprived someone of their property. Now let's get back on topic and start talking about copyright infringement.
at your computer and pirating seen differently than walking in and stealing a boxed product from a store?
Is this a serious question? In one scenario, there may or may not have been a lost sale (and not everyone believes this is actual harm). No actual property was lost.
In the other scenario, actual property was lost (stolen).
As many times as we have to tell you that they are being deprived of sales and income.
They never had the sales or the money to begin with. There's nothing to steal from them.
I'm sure I lose opportunities to gain all the time, but I would not call that theft.
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."
and we accept that because it contributes to our feeling of safety and comfort
That doesn't mean that we need to accept every form of 'regulation' simply because we like to have it in other areas. Not all of it makes sense.
And it's not only the potential for abuse that matters. It's how destructive the abuse is that also matters.
that's because its up to the user, and most users aren't experts in computer security.
They don't need to be experts in computer security. They just need to learn how to use a computer without being idiots.
those that defend freedom to use a computer for whatever they like are in a sense admitting that they would like to reserve the right to use it for questionable purposes
I'd say that most of them are saying, "Yes, this could be used for illegal purposes. However, it is also very useful for doing other things. Therefore, going overboard and trying to stop a few people from doing illegal things by ruining the technology for everyone isn't worth it."
everyone knows that downloading movies is illegal
Who is this "everyone"? Not all countries have the same laws.
so how can preventing the illegal download of movies from the internet be seen as wrong?
This isn't always true, but from what I've seen, people usually say that the methods they use to stop people from downloading copyrighted material is what is wrong. Their methods usually hurt innocent people.
collapses from a deluge of ddos attacks, malware and kiddie porn
Collapses? That sounds highly unrealistic. And how could it possibly collapse from "kiddie porn"? I'd rather take those "risks" than end up like China.
I think people are overly paranoid about the potential for abuse here. The effects simply aren't that large, either.
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.
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.
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.
And 99.99999% of slashdot users recognize the finger as offensive.
[citation needed]
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.
Software Piracy is a bad thing.
Subjective.
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+?
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.
Google isn't banning anyone.
What about the pictures or profiles? They're not banning those?
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?
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.