Malingering’s World

Yes, those shoes really hurt. They hurt so much that she had a bunch of band-aids in her purse for her blisters. Yet she continued to wear them. Why? It it worth enduring the pain to fit into those shoes? Where do we draw the line?

Wearing high pointy heels and purchasing this much merchandise is just asking the shopping gods up there to make you a literal illustration of their favorite phrase. The woman was so unsteady that she had to keep putting down the bags to regain balance before walking another 12 feet. Fortunately she had spent enough that even if she toppled over she had a virtual airbag system to block the fall.

I’m not sure why seeing older people with dolls freaks me out a little bit, but it does. Maybe the same way people freak out when they find out I have cats and they tell me I must be socially inept or a crazy cat lady or something.

L-R: Mom, Mom’s s.o. (can’t say if it’s dad) and kid.

You know, if my mom woke me up on a Sunday morning and said “honey, let’s go shopping, can you find me my hootchie shorts?” I would probably pass on that one and ask if we could go to church or go feed the homeless or something. I’ve seen these families on Ricki Lake and Sally and stuff. They go on and the kid says “mom, your clothes embarrass me” and the mom stands up and starts shaking her ass and says “bitch, I look good! You’re just jealous!” and stuff like that. Well don’t forget you saw it here first.

I don’t know how faux-denim leggings would do on a saddle though. I predict a lot of chafing.

People are responding to the LAist article on Digg.com. And they’re all pissy.

When “flicker” is making people click thumbnails to see your stupid pictures… find yourself a new host if you don’t like it, STFU and GBTW you whiney, spoiled, attention whore.
-frostcrow

I checked out those pictures and they’re a bit … creepy. They really don’t have any socially-redeeming value and exist solely in mean-spirited manner. If this woman insists on discourteously making fun of people and posting their pictures on the internet without their permission, then at the very least she should anonymize the photos by photoshopping small black rectangles over their eyes.
This woman is a photojournalist hack.
-bovox

What a collossal bunch of whiners we have become. Censorship? THIS is what happened to Malingering, in her own words:
“This means that without a Flickr account you cannot see the photos, and even if you have a Flickr account, the thumbnail is all snowy until you decide that you will break the “safe” barrier and click into “unsafe” territory to see what is behind the black pixels.”
So you can still see the photos, just that you need to be a registered user, and explicitly click thru the thumblnail… but THAT is censorship?
My problem here is that we toss around the word censorship with such wanton abandon, it starts to lose its real meaning. Consider Malingering’s “struggle” against pre-civil war America when people were actually killed for printing anti-slavery literature, or the Nazi book burnings. And this still goes on in other parts of the world… yet we spend our energy on this?… where the pictures remained totally 100% accessible!
-eating pie

censor this: this guy is fucking lame, he walks around taking pictures of girls’ t&a
please don’t let this beautiful artistic expression be censored pffft
-c1nn46

If this is one of Flickr’s “best” photographers, I’m afraid to see who their worst are.
-coachzed

Flickr is doing the right thing. Imagine any one of us ending on that ladies flickr page who takes pics of badly dressed people. Who is she to judge us anyway! Ban her atleast flickr!
-newstart

And on the other hand, sites like Flickr have a reputation to hold on to. Whether photographs of people in poor clothing is insulting or not is a matter of taste, of course. But one should ask: what kind of paper / art exhibit would display such photos. It’s weighting on the value of displaying them versus the harm they are causing the people in the pictures.

Thank you pie and mwosh, for having some sense.
If you don’t like this, then USE SOMETHING ELSE. It’s a damn website, if they do something that really bothers you to that extent, put your photos somewhere else. You are NOT tied to it.
-tizz66

Best photographers? Some woman with an expensive camera who takes pictures of her cats and badly dressed people and comes up with ever so mature titles is now one of the best?
-gonadhunter

Call the Wambulance.
-monergism

First off, this photographer is a jerk to begin with….so the hell with him/her.
-sion2119

the pictures on that page are total shit, besides the cat picture and that is alright
-pic0

I think that image of the pier was censored because its incredibly overexposed.
-ddn3d
Note to Dugg-folk:

I didn’t call myself a photographer. Ever. So enough already.

Censorship was the most appropriate word I could find. Please recommend a better one.

I do have my own host. But I like Flickr as a community. That’s why I’m there. Not out of necessity. In fact I stated quite clearly that people should look at the other photo sites out there. Do you think I don’t heed my own advice?

I never claimed to be a photojournalist.

I also never claimed to be a guy.

I think the important thing was that my photos were restricted NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT, but because people were flagging them because they don’t like ME. If it were the content, and I were offered an explanation then fine, but this was a reaction to people’s petty attempts at revenge, and that’s what concerns me.

I do have my own site and my own domain name, but I like the idea of the Flickr community and I’ve learned a great deal about photography as well as perspective from being a part of it. I have no problem sticking to my own blog, but I would miss the community aspect of things and that’s why I’m not taking my photos and running away.

After I brought this up, several people found their photos were restricted, photos of trees and children and flowers. There’s clearly something wrong with the system and it needs to be evaluated.

If Flickr decided that the street photo type images I post are inappropriate, then I would live with that. But they did this because of people who were trying to get to me. And that’s the difference.

The good news is, Nomar is visible again.

After being convinced by LAist that Moses would wreak havoc upon my soul if I didn’t write up my Flickr perils, I wrote this little silly article on LAist. People started coming out of the woodwork (yay!) and then it showed up on Digg (check out the comments, they’re hilarious).

Whether or not this prompted the response I got from Flickr, I’m not sure, but then I received this email:

Hello Malingering,

First off, we’re very sorry! I’ve gone through and remoderated your photostream as safe (except for those that you’ve moderated yourself).

We owe you an explanation. It seems that your photostream attracts quite a bit of attention from the community, and when this happens you turn up for review by staff again and again. I’m afraid when this happens, we start feeling compelled to “do something”. In your case, it was clearly the wrong thing. As you rightly point out, the photos have been taken in public.

We’ve taken steps to prevent your account being marked restricted for this type of content again. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond to this email, and I’ll do my best to address them.

Kind Regards, Michelle

Well, I guess I have one concern. Is it a good policy to feel “compelled” to censor someone as a knee-jerk reaction to people complaining? It’s punish first, correct later? Is that a good idea? I’m not sure. I’ve never been in charge of a big corporation, or any business, and I certainly haven’t paid much attention to PR stuff, so I have no clue.

At least I’m not as bad off as Gail Orenstein who was somehow removed from Flickr altogether, though it appears she’s back. Goody.

I have been noticing a great deal of people with stars coming out of their pants, and I’m wondering what is going on. Are your private parts from another world? Are you a host for alien spawn? Was your chili especially sparkly today?

You can’t tell me you didn’t look at that and think “is she farting stars?”

I guess it’s another one of those trends I will never ever figure out. Until then, I’ll just take pictures.

I owe Flickr for getting me some attention and tons of viewers and allowing me to pay $25/year to store my photos there. But today, I have had enough.

This is absolutely inane. Look at what I got today:

We’ve placed your account under the category “public”/”restricted”. You’re welcome and encouraged to moderate your content on a photo by photo level, while keeping our Community Guidelines and FAQ for content filters in mind.

Your account has been classified as “restricted” by the Flickr team given the sexualized nature of the content in your photostream.

Kind Regards, -Terrence

First of, NO I cannot “moderate my content on a photo by photo level.” Apparently when an entire account is marked restricted, you are not allowed the option to change any of the flags on your photos. The “safe” and “moderate” radio buttons are grayed out so you can’t use them. So that doesn’t really work, does it?

Second of all, every photo I have of a human being is taken IN PUBLIC. So please tell me how this applies: Restricted – This is content you probably wouldn’t show to your mum, and definitely shouldn’t be seen by kids. Guess what guys. My “mum” sees these people on the street. So do their mums. So do their dads. And so do their kids. Are you telling me the stuff I see every day in the shopping mall should be hidden from my mother?

Dear lord. So I get this: My account has been reviewed as unsafe. What does that mean? An “unsafe” account is something we think of as a loose cannon. It’s not clear to us that you’re moderating your own content at all, or if you are, you’re not bearing in mind that there are other people using Flickr and that it’s up to you to not be overtly offensive.

Okay, you’re right. I am not moderating my content AT ALL.

A loose canon,

Malingering

Briefly, I thought it was over. My account had been marked “safe.” Just as I was feeling better, I found this:

IT IS NOT OVER

It appears my whole Ridiculous Los Angeles set is not available for public view (at least when I log out, I can’t see it).

Other sets not available for public view:

The asswriting set

the Ugg set

The Hermosa Beach set

Some is flagging my former explore photos. Please tell me how this is “restricted.” It was #1 in Explore on that day for a YEAR (if it were so offensive, why did it stay there?). www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/152506055/

There are about 15 more restricted photos which were former Explore photos: all have the following message on them.

This image was moderated as RESTRICTED, PHOTO by Flickr Staff.

(see page 2 of the comments for the dirtiness which Flickr must restrict)

Anyway, photo taking has become a compulsion for me now and I simply cannot stop, but Flickr’s censorship is getting out of hand. So I am going to try some new methods and work on this blog for now.

Also look for my write-ups on www.LAist.com

http://www.laist.com/2007/05/11/caught_between_a_rock_and_a_breast_implant.php
http://www.laist.com/2007/05/04/yes_i_am_the_muffin_man.php
http://www.laist.com/archives/2007/04/26/ugg_enough.php
http://www.laist.com/archives/2007/04/17/american_girls_gone_wild.php
http://www.laist.com/archives/2007/04/19/root_root_root_for_the_away_team.php

http://www.laist.com/archives/2007/04/23/dodger_stadium_doesnt_like_me.php