Before I get really rolling on my rant against discrimination and censorship by social media, let me first thank my commenters.
Onward to my rant about SOCIAL MEDIA DISCRIMINATION and CENSORSHIP:
It's a real shame when social media escalates from enabling haters and trolls to actively slandering, censoring and deleting the posts or even the accounts of the victims of the discrimination and abuse, all at the behest of said haters and trolls. Social media are well aware that false-flagging trolls have commandeered their automated flagging activated "moderation" (censorship) programmes.
Here are a few examples of Social Media wrongfully using their "Terms of Service" as a pretext to censor underwear and justify sex discrimination
Facebook outright lies about the fact that they censor people: In an article in TODAY.com Facebook was quoted as claiming "We've always allowed breast feeding photos". Shortly thereafter they flagged a breast-feeding photo saying "Please Review the Community Standards. Your Page, group or event was reported to Facebook. After reviewing the report, we determined one or more photos or posts don't follow the Facebook Community Standards". Clearly Facebook practices sex discrimination, lies in order to try to justify that discrimination, and lies about having done so. George Orwell's novel "1984" was prescient, and what was revealed in the movie Orwell Rolls In His Grave by Robert Kane Pappas was only the tip of the iceberg.
Sadly those who seek objective truth on the internet have a very difficult time finding it, and the task of truth-finding is getting more difficult as hopes for "Net Neutrality" seem to be fading away.
The ACLU has posted articles titled: "What Is Net Neutrality? | American Civil Liberties Union" and "Net Neutrality: Securing Equality Online | American Civil Liberties Union". RT.com did an op-ed titled: "Dumping Net Neutrality: 'Fast' lane to censorship & Obama's biggest letdown - RT Op-Edge"
At the time of this writing there was a Wikipedia article titled "Internet censorship in the United States". That article noted that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) have both been found to unconstitutionally violate the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I couldn't help but ask myself: Could or has Google's coercive bundling of YouTube/Google+/Gmail become a much worse antitrust violation than the bundling of Windows with their browser Internet Explorer that wound up costing Microsoft millions of dollars in fines? Surely Google's coercive tactics in attempting to bundle YouTube, gmail, their browser, Blogger, Google search and more into a single Google+ account must violate antitrust laws. Have they become too big to prosecute?
A googlegovernance.co.uk article "Google plus antitrust and privacy risk revealed In New York Times stopthegfiles" noted: "Being required to sign into one product in order to access a previously independent one raises anti-trust issues".
Facebook is noted for operating well outside the envelope and relying heavily on its lawyers to defend its practices. Perhaps seeing how Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have reaped billions of dollars per year from their monopolistic and datamining schemes (whilst their companies pay only millions of dollars in slap-on-the-wrist fines for monopolistic behavior and datamining) has proved too tempting for Google. Perhaps Google executives are letting avarice convince them to drop the word "Don't" from their former motto "Don't be evil", thus converting the motto to "Be evil" in hopes of becoming much more super-rich than they are.
Unfortunately it appears their avarice has annihilated whatever common sense they had and they have disregarded the technical advice they used to give in Google Help. Changing account names, titles and URLs screws up websites and accounts and hurts search results. Their CPU hungry graphics and scripts slow loading to a crawl, cause excessive buffering and synchronisation problems, browser freezing, and severely impair user experience. The hacking of browsers and disabling of private browsing to enable data-mining by the likes of DoubleClick does not seem to have slowed despite Google having to pay $17 million dollars for hacking Safari web browsers. The consumers whose browsers were hacked and whose data was compromised were never compensated - so where's my payment? Only Apple received the proceeds from the slap-on-the-wrist.
The hacking of Safari browsers defeated Safari's "Private Browsing" feature and destroyed anonymity. The Electronic Freedom Foundation Asked Virginia's Supreme Court to Take Anonymous Speech Seriously, noting that anonymous speech, including in customer reviews, are necessary for a free society. What Google's Doubleclick did was even worse that destroying anonymity. It enables Doubleclick to track Apple Computer users browsing habits across the web.. They then facilitated third parties to "...see which account on a social network is yours. They can then just go to your profile page, record its contents, and add them to your file. Of the 12 social networks surveyed in this paper, only one (Orkut) didn't leak any personally identifying information to third parties." Google's Doubleclick is far from alone in the rush to invade the privacy of and data-mine its users. Now, according to the SociaTimes, there has been a Global Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Facebook in Europe for tracking its users on external sites and aiding the NSA's "surveillance and data-mining program, Prism".
On July 23rd, 2014 I came across an article titled A T & T, Chernin Group close to deal to buy YouTube network Fullscreen -tech blog | Reuters. If ever there were a case for declaring YouTube a common carrier, demanding Net Neutrality and that the anti-discrimination requirements of United States code and the Constitution prevail rather than YouTube's arbitrarily interpreted, vague and changeable "Terms of Service", the potential acquisition by AT & T should make the case for non-discrimination crystal clear.
Sadly if the FCC fails to enforce net neutrality, bandwidth will go to the highest bidders, and little schnooks like us will have to put up with excessive buffering and poor internet service. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been fighting a lonely battle trying making net neutrality enforceable. Wish her luck.
Here's an Adorable Song by Emma Blackery (From Emma Blackery's YouTube Channel) titled: "My Thoughts on Google+".
So far Google seems to have turned a deaf ear to criticism both of its discriminatory censorship and of its coercive attempts to make YouTubers get Google+ accounts, disregarding all of the following:
An article by VioletBlue: Forced Google Plus integration on YouTube backfires;
YouTubers give revamp thumbs down | crave.cnet.co.uk;
YouTube co-founder Jawed Karin slammed Google for requiring a Google + account to comment on YouTube. asking: "Why the fuck do I need a google account to comment on YouTube?" He subsequently changed the icon on his YouTube channel to an image saying "google+ SUCKS". YouTube then censored (removed) Jawed Karin's icon!. Having seen that Google has a turned a deaf ear to YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim, it would seem the chances of any of us little schnooks getting their attention are somewhere between slim and none.
Is Google violating its settlement with FTC in the course of its bundling integration of Google+ and YouTube?
Google is already being investigated by the European Commission's antitrust unit for anti-competitive tactics. and the business community has taken note:
Google Plus Creates Uproar Over Forced Integration | Forbes.com;
Feds to Launch Antitrust Probe of Google - WSJ.com;
It would appear to me that from Google's point of view money trumps both free speech and privacy as well. Here are a few more articles that I feel illustrate that:
From articles in The Guardian: Google pays 37 US States 17 million settlement to US States and a 22.5 million fine to FTC for hacking Mac Safari via DoubleClick. Here's an article in appleinsider on the settlement. Note how the users themselves were never paid a dime for having had their computers and privacy invaded. A few more articles:
Via Sarah Silbert at Engadget: Google to pay $17 million as penalty for unauthorized web tracking in Safari. Where's my compensation?
From Dailydot.com: Could a Google+ security flaw take down your YouTube page with no warning?
Google's recent YouTube fiasco isn't just about privacy | USA Today
Google's Relentless Campaign to Make Google+ Work Becomes YouTube's Problem | Time.com.
Google's business tactics, straying far from its former "Don't be evil" motto, have earned the company some well deserved scorn:
Google's tactics in trying to snooker people into signing up for a Google+ account were satirised with a YouTube/Google+ bait and switch baby GIF via Washington Post
baby GIF via nofollow">YouTube/Google+ bait and switch baby GIF via i.imgur.com
I enjoyed watching the video Wilhelmina: Show Your True Self - YouTube
I would love to be able to say YouTube, Google, Flickr, Facebook et al apologise when the discriminatory and wrongful censorship they have perpetrated is brought to their attention, but they don't and I can not. These internet behemoths tend to ignore even legal demands to cease and desist from slandering people. It is that inclination to ignore requests to cease and desist from slander after the facts are brought to their attention that resulted in Google losing in court when an Australian man sued them for defamation.
It is not just photos and videos that are being wrongfully censored here in the supposedly once free United States of America. The NCAC ran an article noting that the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression is Preparing for Banned Books Week 2014 (September 21-27). The most challenged/top censored book on the American Library Association's annual list this year is Dav Pilkey's "Captain Underpants".
Some bloggers and YouTubers have fought back and shamed Instagram into apologising for censoring their underwear photos:
Instagram apologised to Meghan Tonjes after she launched a public campaign and posted a video documenting the discrimination. The video was titled: Dear Instagram. (F.A.T) @Instagram - YouTube. It's had over 700,000 views. Here is her video embedded:
YouTube employs different levels of high-handed censorship, One of their most often employed censorship tools is "restricting" viewing of the videos. Whilst Google's YouTube claims that they are restricting the videos to over-18 viewers, they do not operate the way most over eighteen sites do. Most adult sites merely require the would be viewer to click a button under a statement stating that they are over 18. Unlike those sites, Google's YouTube unethically requires viewers to have an account and sign in, presumably to try to increase the number of people they can claim as account holders whilst also keeping a record of their interests.
Google also censors and/or restricts images of me male modeling (back view) ladies full coverage panties. Capricious and arbitrary censorship by social media corporations is completely out of hand. According to the Wikipedia article on arbitrary censorship, blogger Mike Linksvayer "posited that free content licenses such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike are voluntary repeals of one's ability to arbitrarily claim the right to prohibit the distribution, modification or commercialization of a creative work." in his post titled "Retaining the right to censor is an act of hate". He in turn links to the Electronic Frontier Foundation article Say No to Online Censorship!
Rihanna's 'S&M' Video was Restricted by YouTube but the video, "...poking fun at the ball-gag wearing media" but MTV, to it's credit, chose to run the video unedited.
As the American Civil Liberties Union points out in their page on Internet Censorship: "... freedom of speech online continues to be threatened..." "...the government has no right to censor protected speech on the Internet, and it cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that the government considers suitable for children."
Unfortunately both governments and corporations are blocking, filtering and restricting sites and content broadly and arbitrarily. The Open Rights Group asks "Is your site blocked by UK ISP filters?"
After links and directly typed to this blog at http://www.full-brief-panties.blogspot.com were intercepted and redirected by my service provider I started wondering whether my blog URL gets blocked by other ISPs and how much of what I see is being filtered.
I wondered whether there have been updates for these articles on Widespread Hijacking of Search Traffic in the United States and An update on Paxfire and search redirection.
Occasionally when those who have been censored happen to own media outlets they manage to be heard about it. On 4 July 2014 Mail Online published an article titled: "Google backs down in censorship row".
Apparently, however, Google's YouTube has nothing but contempt for the bloggers who use their platforms.
Eight of my YouTube videos are currently "restricted", requiring people to "sign in" to view them, and two of my videos were removed and replaced slanderous statements about me. Although the preview icon for the "Featured" video on my YouTube channel (Mister_Panty_Buns-loves-having-Hanes-Women's-Nylon-Panties-on) is visible you cannot watch it on YouTube without signing in because it is "restricted". It can, I believe, still be watched embedded here without signing in.
So far one doesn't have to sign in to watch it on VEOH TV
Watch MOV-Mister_Panty_Buns-loves-having-Hanes_Her_Way-Womens-Nylon-Brief-Panties-on.AVI in Entertainment | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR RESTRICTING MY CUSTOMER REVIEW OF HANES HER WAY WOMEN'S NYLON BRIEFS
Here is a photo of me in the blouse and panty outfit of the day that YouTube restricted the viewing of.
My customer lingerie review video taken modeling this lingerie fashion outfit of the day featuring full coverage briefs and no sexual content whatsoever was restricted by YouTube!
Compare that image with the video thumbnails of women in lingerie videos that YouTube does not restrict, showing them as "you may also like" to people who view my video titled "MOV-Customer-Lingerie-Review-Vanity_Fair-Ravissant-full_briefs.AVI".
Being seen in public in ones underwear, in photos, videos, in newspapers, magazines, on billboards, and on television has become commonplace and yet some Social Media sites still cave in to pressure to censor it, particularly if the wearer is overweight or if their gender doesn't match the common gender association of their underwear.
The many underwear in public events, some of which I have written about on this blog, are generally not censored as much. Here s a list of some of those events. You can read about some of them in my earlier posts:
The No Pants Subway Ride In January;
Cupid's Undie Run "in your bedroom best on Valentine's Weekend.";
The Shamrockin' Underwear Run kicking off the Saint Patrick's Day weekend in the Crescent City New Orleans;
2014 Underwear Run in Central Park, New York City on August 1st, 2014 starting at 7:30 PM;
National Underwear Day. organised by Freshpair. Last year's event was on August 5th, 2014 in Times Square in Manhattan;
Here's an article on the Undie Run - Wikipedia and their website http://undierun.com/.
Celebrities in their underwear rarely get censored. The Frisky published photos of 26 Celebs In Sheer Clothing. Among the 26 celebrities in the media spotlight photographed in their sheer couture were:
Gaia Weiss and
The list of celebrities out in public and on stage in lingerie is a long one and includes Lady gaga, Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian, Madonna, Rihanna, Shakira, and many many many more, but does this cause haters and prudes to hesitate from false flagging everyday people from doing lingerie reviews or posting underwear selfies? Nooooooo. The haters, bigots and prudes never rest from trying to make social media an instrument in implementing their own myopic desire for controlling everyone else. Unfortunately social media sites all too often accede to their demands. That doesn't stop the supermarket tabloids from publishing the photos though. (Example: Daily news article titled "Kelly Osborn bares her bottom in racy thong photo posted to Instagram" ).
The NY Daily News and published this "cover art" photograph of Nicki Minaj's bare bottom in an article about the delay of Nicki's single 'Anaconda'. The same photo showing Nicki Minaj's bare bottom was featured in a Feministing article titled "Micki Minaj's butt and the politics of black women's sexuality". Nicki Minaj posted this same photo showing her entire bare bottom as the profile icon for her Twitter, @NICKIMINAJ. She also posted it on Instagram and received over 300,000 "Likes" on the photo. The photo featuring Nicki's bottom was also featured in the Billboard article Nicki Minaj Previews Syeamy 'Anaconda' Video, Unleashes Full Track. So how is it that a man wearing ladies full brief panties with his entire bottom covered gets censored? There can be no other plausible explanation other than blatant bigoted sex discrimination.
.jpg (not restricted).
The Nicki Minaj - Anaconda Official Music Video Snippet uploaded by Nicki Minaj Tv
shows Nicki Minaj twerking in black briefs.
Meanwhile, YouTube issued a "STRIKE" against my account for the customer review video of the full coverage shapewear panty brief featured in in my post titled: "Lbloggers Fbloggers OOTD and Review of Maidenform Flexees Shapewear Panty Briefs". The full coverage Maidenform Flexees Shaper Panty in the video that YouTube issued a "Strike" against my account for covered my bottom completely. The conclusion after comparison is inescapable. YouTube's censorship of my video was a hate-motivated act of blatant sex-discrimination as defined in the United States Code. Even if they acted at the behest of someone else they are at this point an accessory at least and acting in bad faith. Since I already requested that they "Cease and Decist" from slandering me, pointed out the fact that what they are saying is false and they have declined to desist, they can be sued for that continuing slander. The high-handed manner in which social media corporations treat their users is unconscionable.
UPDATE #2 An August 20th 2014 Billboard article Nicki Minaj's Smoking-Hot 'Anaconda' Video Arrives Online | Billboard features the same pinup photo of Nicki Minaj along with the embedded video Nicki Minaj - Anaconda - YouTube.
Despite the rant against discriminatory social media censorship you can still find me (at the moment anyhow) at:
I stopped uploading my lingerie review photos and videos to my account on Photobucket (also gobbled up by Google) due to unpredictable, arbitrary and wrongful censorship.
I had considered uploading this image to Photobucket
to replace a photo that Photobucket censored (of me male-modeling Vanity Fair turquoise full briefs).
UPDATE: Jezebel published an article titled: "Nicki Minaj's Ass, Bent on World Domination, Gets Censored by Apple". The article asks: "Still, do black women need parental advisory stickers for the beach too?" At least she didn't have her video taken down and a strike issued against her account the way YouTube wrongfully did to me.
Please feel free to leave links to your fashion, beauty, lifestyle and social media related blogs along with your COMMENTS BELOW