"Gosh, we don't know if Daryl Hannah approved of this Photoshop fake or not." Er, we'd need Daryl Hannah to discover it, send in a DMCA form, and complain. Oh, and if the seller files a counter-notice, we'd have to put it back, and Daryl Hannah would have to find the seller and take him to court."
Because..."WE ARE JUST A VENUE." Even though they have supposed rules against "offensive materials" and could interpret this as OFFENSIVE.
There would be a 50-50 chance that if reported to "ADULT: Not Allowed at All" or "OFFENSIVE MATERIALS" somebody would say, "Right, that's offensive, that's not allowed, that's obviously a Photoshop fake intended to humiliate and degrade Darryl Hannah for a sexual thrill." Prurient interest, too, which is a definition of obscenity.
TWITTER would remove that picture instantly, and restrict the poster from using their site:
In fact, TWITTER has hoops that prevent people from unlocking their account. They ONLY accept a cell number. The offender gives them the cell number, which then becomes knowledge around the world (doesn't it?) and TWITTER sends a code number via text message. Then the second chance is given. If the offender only has a landline, too bad. The offender will get form letters and then "case has been closed."
Ebay's CEO Devin Wenig has yet to amend eBay's rules so that "offensive materials" specifically includes nude depictions of women posted "without a model release of age and consent."
Somehow, TWITTER doesn't think "we're just a venue" and weak DMCA laws justifies nude images of women POSTED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
They would not use the Ebay excuse of "we can't contact our seller and ask to see their signed model release of age and consent because...we're JUST A VENUE."
Instead, they let the seller continue to sell, even after multiple warnings and stoppages. As in, "How do we know that because a VeRO rep sent us a complaint on ONE actress, that this seller doesn't have agreements with the others? And we're NOT going to ask, because....we're...JUST A VENUE."
Is that SHABBY?
This is the same eBay that has a rule (which is not a law) against women selling their used underwear. This is the same eBay that has a rule (which is not a law) against selling Nazi memorabilia, or a photo that "glorifies" the KKK.
Minority groups are protected on eBay, most of the time, but women? How about protecting women (not just celebrities) against the sale of revenge porn? A woman makes the mistake of posing nude, the boyfriend secretly makes duplicates, and then the break-up comes, the boyfriend happily posts the pictures all over the Net. Some end up downloaded by eBay weasels and sold as "amateur photo" and "found photo" with NOTHING about "age and consent."
But that's the "fun." The idea is to humiliate women and destroy their dignity and get even with them without their knowledge. It's far more "fun" than buying pictures of nude women who consent and even get paid to pose.
The bureaucratic labyrinth of eBay is, that even in the best of times, "report item" can be ignored.
Or as one low-level phone support eBay employee put it: "We get millions of auctions posted every minute and millions of complaints. Use "REPORT THIS ITEM" in the ad, and keep reporting it till somebody has the time to check it out."
Yes? "REPORT THIS ITEM" to: Adult: not allowed at all, or to "Offensive Materials : something else?" Why not have a category for: "No model release of age or consent" or "Depicts a famous actress nude" or "Is selling a "found" picture of an unidentified woman who could be underage, or have had her photos hacked, or is the subject of revenge porn."
TWITTER just shuts down the account. They don't allow THIS, which, like the Hannah picture, is on Ebay and ignored by "REPORT THIS ITEM."
This seller, like the other one, has been stopped on items, but only "given warnings."
Why is that? Because another eBay game THAT TWITTER DOESN'T PLAY, is to not shut down an account instantly, or keep it shut permanently after another violation. It's "we give a warning, and another warning, and another warning and if it keeps happening, we MAY restrict the account to only posting 100 items or less for a day. Then a week. Then a month..."
#metoo complains if Al Franken's hand grazes a woman's waist when he's trying to navigate her for a selfie in a crowded room in front of her husband. They don't think that Taylor Swift deserves better than this?
Ha ha ha, a fridge magnet for your MAN CAVE. Stuck up Taylor needs a vibrator stuck up her snatch. Your fantasy comes true with this home-made item. I got myself a magnet kit, and I can make a magnet out of anything. Ha ha ha. Ebay says Taylor Swift's VeRO rep would have to stop this, because they can't be sure I don't have a license, and THEY won't ask!! HA HA HA
PS, this is the same EBAY that will stop a seller for posting a movie "that we believe contains nudity which is not allowed..." This is the same EBAY that will stop an adult movie because "it violates our rule on depicting urination." Really? Annie Sprinkle movies that were made in the 70's? Nice to know that Trump's tape would be protected.
An obvious Photoshop fake on Darryl Hannah, posted as REAL? CEO Devin Wenig has a problem stopping this? TWITTER does NOT.
No comments:
Post a Comment