by mcherm on 1/18/12, 5:18 PM
The approach is particularly creative: drive home the feeling of censorship by allowing some users to "censor" other users.
by artursapek on 1/18/12, 5:55 PM
I wish they had followed through strongly on this. There's a hard-to-miss link that lets you opt-out of having your photos censored, and if you're visiting a blacked-out photo flickr gives the anti-PIPA spiel and presents a button to "show it anyway." If they were trying to demonstrate what SOPA/PIPA would make the internet like, shouldn't they just bite the bullet and make these photo black-outs permanent for a day? The idea is great but its implementation is pretty weak, it won't actually get people worked up.
by brlewis on 1/18/12, 8:19 PM
by ggchappell on 1/18/12, 7:57 PM
All these positive comments are surprising. I find this to be a very bad idea. Flickr is a service (unlike HN) that some people depend on, and that some people
pay for. So Flickr is saying that, even if I pay for their service, they might deny it to me, at the whims of other users?
Flickr is showing themselves to be untrustworthy -- and possibly in breach of contract. I would suggest not relying on them.
by maurits on 1/18/12, 6:53 PM
by rbanffy on 1/18/12, 7:08 PM
My biggest complaint is that it's not easy to automate blacking out every photo of every SOPA supporter.
It is, but it involves YQL, API keys and more time than I want to dedicate.
by akadien on 1/18/12, 5:38 PM
I like this feature.
I changed my Gravatar, g+, and FB images to black squares today to solicit whys from my networks.
by ceejayoz on 1/18/12, 7:39 PM
The wording on this was confusing enough that I thought Flickr was claiming I'd opted-in to black out my photos.
by maeon3 on 1/18/12, 6:36 PM
We are no doubt pissing off Congress to no end. I wonder what the approval rating of Congress will become after this stunt? 5%? 2%?