User with graphic profile picture
DiscussãoCommon Knowledge, WikiThing, HelpThing
Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1skript
I just came across a user with a very graphic violent image as their profile picture: https://www.librarything.com/profile/Headcleaner. Where/how/should I report this? I see a small "flag" button on their page but can't click it.
2MarthaJeanne
You find contact info for staff at the bottom of most pages.
3Watry
Just as a heads-up for others--I clicked on the profile thinking it would be something sexual, but the graphicness OP refers to is violence. Very graphic violence.
4skript
>2 MarthaJeanne: Thank you, I'll do that.
6lilithcat
>1 skript:
The "flag" button you see is to flag the user, not the image. For obvious reasons, you cannot flag a person's profile images.
The TOS say, "Do not upload X-rated or otherwise highly objectionable pictures." I don't know that this image is "highly objectionable"
The "flag" button you see is to flag the user, not the image. For obvious reasons, you cannot flag a person's profile images.
The TOS say, "Do not upload X-rated or otherwise highly objectionable pictures." I don't know that this image is "highly objectionable"
7skript
>6 lilithcat: A picture of a decapitated head is pretty objectionable and not necessary. At least not on this website.
8lilithcat
>7 skript:
No profile image is "necessary". And "objectionable" is in the eye of the beholder. Leave it to staff.
No profile image is "necessary". And "objectionable" is in the eye of the beholder. Leave it to staff.
9timspalding
The image is taken from this book https://www.librarything.com/work/3146076, which has the cover https://pics.cdn.librarything.com//picsizes/bc/b4/bcb4241e2c2cfba596f56547977414.... The book is legit—more than 100 members and peer reviewed. It shows a still from some movie--not going to chase it down now.
Members will recall the discussion of NSFW covers—a feature we withdrew after protests and which, in retrospect, I regret making. See https://www.librarything.com/topic/312141 . There is a strong distaste here against censoring book/movie/album covers. I think it would apply to part of a cover, or a movie still. And I share that distaste.
These are tricky issues, but given the source, context and the lack of anything else worrying, I'm landing on "do nothing." FWIW, sometimes staff disagree, but at least those who look at these issues agree. You can block the member. And indeed you can express your displeasure at it, and ask them to remove it. But, for now, we're going to let it stay.
Members will recall the discussion of NSFW covers—a feature we withdrew after protests and which, in retrospect, I regret making. See https://www.librarything.com/topic/312141 . There is a strong distaste here against censoring book/movie/album covers. I think it would apply to part of a cover, or a movie still. And I share that distaste.
These are tricky issues, but given the source, context and the lack of anything else worrying, I'm landing on "do nothing." FWIW, sometimes staff disagree, but at least those who look at these issues agree. You can block the member. And indeed you can express your displeasure at it, and ask them to remove it. But, for now, we're going to let it stay.
10anglemark
>9 timspalding: Thank you.
11skript
>9 timspalding: Thank you, Tim. I missed, and not even considered, that the picture came from a book cover. That definitely changes the matter and I'm definitely against censoring artwork.
12timspalding
>11 skript: Tineye.com. Chases down any image :)
13waltzmn
>11 skript:
There is a middle way, which is obvious and (I think) preferable to either censorship or leaving things available to see, and that is trigger warnings.
Remember, folks, there are people with trauma disorders! (Like me.) You can hurt people with things like that. I'm not calling for suppression. But you can let people know. I don't want to have to see (whatever) and block the member. I want to be told that there is content ahead that might damage me. Without censoring it.
There is a middle way, which is obvious and (I think) preferable to either censorship or leaving things available to see, and that is trigger warnings.
Remember, folks, there are people with trauma disorders! (Like me.) You can hurt people with things like that. I'm not calling for suppression. But you can let people know. I don't want to have to see (whatever) and block the member. I want to be told that there is content ahead that might damage me. Without censoring it.
14lilithcat
>13 waltzmn:
I want to be told that there is content ahead that might damage me.
How would the site know what might damage you, or any other user?
I want to be told that there is content ahead that might damage me.
How would the site know what might damage you, or any other user?
15MarthaJeanne
I get triggered every time they show people getting shots on TV. I have learned to look away as soon as the news moderator starts in on anything to do with vaccination. They just love showing a needle going into someone's arm. I bet you never noticed how common that is. (Yes, I got every recommended Covid shot. It took a lot of courage.)
Profile pictures are not all that public. Why the member is using an image that others are likely to find unsavoury, I don't know, but I don't think he is trying to shock people. Several of us saw it now, but the member didn't pull us there. How often do you go to a random member's profile?
Profile pictures are not all that public. Why the member is using an image that others are likely to find unsavoury, I don't know, but I don't think he is trying to shock people. Several of us saw it now, but the member didn't pull us there. How often do you go to a random member's profile?
16waltzmn
>14 lilithcat: How would the site know what might damage you, or any other user?
Graphic violence is a well-known trigger. >15 MarthaJeanne: suggests another one -- needle phobia is estimated to afflict at least an eighth of the population (it is suggested that pediatricians need new training to help prevent that). Of course one cannot know every trigger (e.g. LibraryThing can't be expected to know every sound to which I have sensitivity, and I don't expect them to), but established triggers can be the subject of warnings.
This is not censorship -- the picture would not be suppressed. This is kindness. MarthaJeanne is again right -- I don't usually visit other people's profiles, and I am not likely to encounter the profile of someone who would display something like that, because their interests are not mine.
But I don't think that's relevant. There is a balance here: How are you harmed by having to read a trigger warning? Half a second to click past it. If half a second of someone's time is too high a cost to prevent a possible suicide (perhaps even with a mass shooting associated with it), what does that say about our society? And, yes, triggering images do (sometimes) trigger extreme behaviors.
Again, this is not censorship, because nothing is being removed from the site. I grant that enforcement would be tricky. Is that a reason not to try? Knowing that a life might be on the line?
Graphic violence is a well-known trigger. >15 MarthaJeanne: suggests another one -- needle phobia is estimated to afflict at least an eighth of the population (it is suggested that pediatricians need new training to help prevent that). Of course one cannot know every trigger (e.g. LibraryThing can't be expected to know every sound to which I have sensitivity, and I don't expect them to), but established triggers can be the subject of warnings.
This is not censorship -- the picture would not be suppressed. This is kindness. MarthaJeanne is again right -- I don't usually visit other people's profiles, and I am not likely to encounter the profile of someone who would display something like that, because their interests are not mine.
But I don't think that's relevant. There is a balance here: How are you harmed by having to read a trigger warning? Half a second to click past it. If half a second of someone's time is too high a cost to prevent a possible suicide (perhaps even with a mass shooting associated with it), what does that say about our society? And, yes, triggering images do (sometimes) trigger extreme behaviors.
Again, this is not censorship, because nothing is being removed from the site. I grant that enforcement would be tricky. Is that a reason not to try? Knowing that a life might be on the line?
17lilithcat
>16 waltzmn:
established triggers can be the subject of warnings.
Do you have a list of "established triggers"? Or must every known phobia be accounted for? MarthaJeanne has an image of a butterfly on her profile page, triggering for people with Lepidopterophobia. My current image has a disembodied hand, which might well be upsetting to some people. Someone who has been bitten or mauled by a dog might well be traumatized going to someone's page and seeing an image of their pet.
I don't see how it's feasible.
established triggers can be the subject of warnings.
Do you have a list of "established triggers"? Or must every known phobia be accounted for? MarthaJeanne has an image of a butterfly on her profile page, triggering for people with Lepidopterophobia. My current image has a disembodied hand, which might well be upsetting to some people. Someone who has been bitten or mauled by a dog might well be traumatized going to someone's page and seeing an image of their pet.
I don't see how it's feasible.
18amberwitch 
Esta mensagem foi marcada como abusiva por vários utilizadores e por isso não é mostrada (mostre)
>13 waltzmn: You can obviously ask the world to wrap you up in cotton and cater to you special needs, but I suspect it is going to be hard to convince it.
It is part of being in the world to encounter things that you don't like or expect, and I for one is not interested in catering to that kind of sensitivity, and in fact consider it both censorship and damaging to the fabric of our society.
Very snowflaky behaviour to my mind.
It is part of being in the world to encounter things that you don't like or expect, and I for one is not interested in catering to that kind of sensitivity, and in fact consider it both censorship and damaging to the fabric of our society.
Very snowflaky behaviour to my mind.
19amanda4242
The only way I can think of that would keep people from accidentally seeing images that might upset them, and that wouldn't require constant policing from either members or LT staff, would be a setting that would block all images. I don't know if it would even be possible, but I could see having a profile setting that when selected would block profile images and book covers not in a member's library in a way similar to messages from a blocked user are hidden: the images are hidden by default, but would be displayed by clicking show.
20waltzmn
I am not going to respond, other than with this comment, to those who consider their right to be high and mighty more important than a person's life: Next time, it might be your turn.
It's not just me! Yes, I'm autistic. This is not a trivial issue in my life circle. It's everywhere. My mother is depressive. Most of my father's family has depression or anxiety or other problems. I have a cousin who is transgender and autistic. Another who is bipolar. My best friend from college is depressive. Another friend has an identical twin with multiple suicide attempts. Another friend has permanent scars on her arms from... something. And we're the ones they haven't had to institutionalize. We aren't trying to score points here. We are talking about lives, and life-long trauma.
>19 amanda4242: The only way I can think of that would keep people from accidentally seeing images that might upset them, and that wouldn't require constant policing from either members or LT staff, would be a setting that would block all images.
There is a mechanism that could be implemented: make a series of categories. Examples would be graphic violence, explicit sexual content, racist language or imagery. People can flag an image with those categories. Once an image reaches a certain level (say, five flags), it gets a trigger warning and is hidden. People can see it if they want to; they just have to click past the warning.
The goal isn't to stop everything. It's to try to help those we can.
Of course there are unique triggers, many of them. And I am not arguing to flag those. I agree, that is impossible. Sadly, most people with unique triggers have had to learn how to work around them. The standard triggers -- e.g. graphic violence -- are common and can be addressed.
If we consider charity to be something worth maintaining.
It's not just me! Yes, I'm autistic. This is not a trivial issue in my life circle. It's everywhere. My mother is depressive. Most of my father's family has depression or anxiety or other problems. I have a cousin who is transgender and autistic. Another who is bipolar. My best friend from college is depressive. Another friend has an identical twin with multiple suicide attempts. Another friend has permanent scars on her arms from... something. And we're the ones they haven't had to institutionalize. We aren't trying to score points here. We are talking about lives, and life-long trauma.
>19 amanda4242: The only way I can think of that would keep people from accidentally seeing images that might upset them, and that wouldn't require constant policing from either members or LT staff, would be a setting that would block all images.
There is a mechanism that could be implemented: make a series of categories. Examples would be graphic violence, explicit sexual content, racist language or imagery. People can flag an image with those categories. Once an image reaches a certain level (say, five flags), it gets a trigger warning and is hidden. People can see it if they want to; they just have to click past the warning.
The goal isn't to stop everything. It's to try to help those we can.
Of course there are unique triggers, many of them. And I am not arguing to flag those. I agree, that is impossible. Sadly, most people with unique triggers have had to learn how to work around them. The standard triggers -- e.g. graphic violence -- are common and can be addressed.
If we consider charity to be something worth maintaining.
21norabelle414
>20 waltzmn: Examples would be graphic violence, explicit sexual content, racist language or imagery.
Those categories don't need a special mechanism, they are already prohibited on the site.
Those categories don't need a special mechanism, they are already prohibited on the site.
22lilithcat
>21 norabelle414:
No, they're not. X-rated images are, but there's no clear rule regarding graphic violence* or racist language/imagery.
* See >9 timspalding:
No, they're not. X-rated images are, but there's no clear rule regarding graphic violence* or racist language/imagery.
* See >9 timspalding:
23karenb
>18 amberwitch:
1) Trigger warnings are a safety issue.
2) You're attacking someone else personally with your phrasing. Please stop.
1) Trigger warnings are a safety issue.
2) You're attacking someone else personally with your phrasing. Please stop.
24amanda4242
>20 waltzmn: To me, your method sounds like it would require constant policing of images and would be even more divisive than the NSFW flag Tim suggested awhile back.
25timspalding
>24 amanda4242:
You can do things with flags and such, without constant policing. Members would be in control, so the main issue would be making sure there was a level of opacity, so members could see what was being flagged and counter-flag if necessary.
But I agree that trigger warnings on member-added content would be extremely divisive. There is no consensus of what's a valid trigger, what level of content deserves it, etc. People would find their talk posts and profile pages marked as triggering, and they and others would be offended.
Finally, I don't see the point of putting a warning on a member's profile image when the same image is also on a book cover and we do nothing about that. And I think it's clear from the NSFW issue, there is no appetite among members for anything of the sort.
You can do things with flags and such, without constant policing. Members would be in control, so the main issue would be making sure there was a level of opacity, so members could see what was being flagged and counter-flag if necessary.
But I agree that trigger warnings on member-added content would be extremely divisive. There is no consensus of what's a valid trigger, what level of content deserves it, etc. People would find their talk posts and profile pages marked as triggering, and they and others would be offended.
Finally, I don't see the point of putting a warning on a member's profile image when the same image is also on a book cover and we do nothing about that. And I think it's clear from the NSFW issue, there is no appetite among members for anything of the sort.
26amanda4242
>25 timspalding: You can do things with flags and such, without constant policing. Members would be in control, so the main issue would be making sure there was a level of opacity, so members could see what was being flagged and counter-flag if necessary.
That would still be constant policing, just by members. I don't want anyone to decide what I should get to see, especially since everyone has different ideas about what is disturbing, offensive, etc.
That would still be constant policing, just by members. I don't want anyone to decide what I should get to see, especially since everyone has different ideas about what is disturbing, offensive, etc.
27lorax
If we've made it 18 years and counting into the history of LT without this having previously been an issue, I really don't think it's something anybody needs to waste time coding up a solution for it - especially some of the super-elaborate ones some people are proposing. Besides, profile images are only visible on someone's profile page, rather than next to their name everywhere (which I see as a good thing).
28timspalding
Besides, profile images are only visible on someone's profile page, rather than next to their name everywhere (which I see as a good thing).
I see it that way too. But, man, we're alone in this now!
I see it that way too. But, man, we're alone in this now!
29MarthaJeanne
I also prefer profile images to just be on the profile.
30JacobHolt
>28 timspalding: Agreed! Please, never change this!
