Posted by: Mrkim [x] - (108.162.221.---)
Date: January 07, 2017 12:00AM
Curious about the recent disappearance of some politically based pics, What's up??
Posted by: Mrkim [x] - (108.162.221.---)
Date: January 09, 2017 07:18AM
Nothin but crickets huh?

Ok, let me be more direct ... WHO deleted the pics/convos and why? If this doesn't rise to a form of censorship, I'd query what then would constitute censorship?
Posted by: pulse [x] - (Moderator)
Date: January 09, 2017 07:52AM
Not sure who, but it appears a "kill user" button was hit which has removed all images uploaded by the fake "random name" user(s) in the past few weeks.

It's not targeted at a theme (ie politics), it's everything they've uploaded. I'd restore it but it was all shit anyway and not worth the time it'd take unless people really miss it.

edit; btw, that button exists to wipe spam, simply deletes everything uploaded by that user but doesn't separate anything out, so if a bunch of spammy images were uploaded by somebody who has also uploaded legit pics and the kill button is pressed then it'd take out both the spam and legit pics. I considered doing it myself when all the underage looking pics were uploaded (same user) recently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 08:29AM by pulse.
Posted by: fossil_digger [x] - (173.245.50.---)
Date: January 09, 2017 12:31PM
shoulda nuked the whole "adult" category, or moved them to the Pornhole.
Posted by: Mrkim [x] - (108.162.221.---)
Date: January 09, 2017 08:42PM
Thanks for the explanation pulse, makes sense and helps assuage my thoughts regarding this being some sort of censorship, which as you know I abhor. Though a case could be made that such an action is indeed censorship, it's at least a reasoning I agree with in this case. 'Course you can take that agreement, put it with $4 and jot down to Stabucks and pick up a cup of your favorite latee', Hi Ho.

To your point regarding the "seemingly" underage chic pics: Ok, so maybe she was actually 20, but the intent as well as what that intent is designed to embrace is what gets under my skin. That shit is just straight up creepy.

As has been noted previously, is it really too much to ask to disallow posts/comments from anyone refusing to assign themselves a user name? While yeah anyone could create multiple usernames and even have discussions with themselves (as I know has already happened), isn't there a way to lock down a user to a single IP? Then if they wanna play games with spoofing their IP, that would be a reasonable grounds for a ban of their username(s), deletion of their pics and IP blocking.

Of course I have no idea if the above is even reasonably possible, so I'm just asking %>/
Posted by: pulse [x] - (Moderator)
Date: March 27, 2017 07:22AM
Yeah it's 100% possible; probably not even that hard to block anon users posting (but as you know it's been forever since any development was done here, DK is dead and I have no time). The main issue is I always liked anons being able to post. It jacks me right off if I want to just post something quickly and I have to sign up, log in with facebook, whatever. Especially since I'm not on facebook so don't have an account.

So yeah. Not a no, just a lazy... smiling smiley
Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Message: