Twitter thinks that having a naked avatar is good. In fact, they not only think it’s good, but you can have one even when you’re on the Twitter “suggested user” list.
I, of all people, am the last guy in the world to be prudish or worry about nudity. I’ve lived in countries where you’ll see full frontal nudity in commercials at breakfast time but after having a conversation yesterday about language and cultural sensibilities (particularly the American sensibility), I was a bit surprised to see an image of Rob Corddry (of The Daily Show) naked atop a giant foot in the Twitter recommended list.
Now, I’ve got no problem with Rob Corddry flashing his arse on Twitter, if I don’t want to see it I just won’t follow him, but I have to wonder if this is the kind of message Twitter really wants to be sending out – that “nude avatars are okay”.
We’ve seen a massive influx of porn spam on the service and god only knows the numbers of “horny kitties” I’ve had following me lately and if Twitter continues to, both allow the spam and promote Corddry as he flashes his backside to the world, then you can only assume that they endorse the use of such avatars.
I love boobs and bums as much as the next man, but when I log into Twitter I don’t want to see Corddry’s bum or billions of fake silicon boobs and photoshopped ass’s in thongs trying to get me to click through to porn sites.
Corddry, man to man, I appreciate you feeling free enough to show you’re body to the world, but please save that for your private page on Facebook and Twitter, please take a stand on this one way or the other!
UPDATE: On the picture upload page of Twitter, 5th point down:
Nudity or obscene images are not allowed.
So that leaves the question of why twitter is breaking their own rules and allowing nudity in the avatar of someone they’ve put on the “suggested” list?
Twitter endorses naked avatars (http://ping.fm/TkopS)
I’ve been following Corddry for a few months now and cracked up when he announced his new avatar. What kills me is the slightest fuzz of pubic hair that seems to spring from his back side. That seals the deal for me.
Regardless of whether I enjoy the comedic value of this image as an avatar, I think that when you demand that Twitter “take a stand” on the matter, you are essentially telling Twitter that they should eliminate this kind of images only to satisfy your personal sense of righteousness.
You state early on that you’re “the last guy in the world to be prudish or worry about nudity,” yet here you are, doing just that. Yes: you are being prudish and worrying about a man’s nudity. You don’t _have_ to see Corddry’s avatar if you don’t want to, just as you don’t _have_ to read tweets from people whose opinions you may find equally objectionable. So, as much as I respect your right to object to Corddry’s avatar, I have to wonder what response are you expecting from Twitter.
You demand that Twitter must “take a stand” on the matter that they seem to endorse Corddry’s nudity by still featuring him as a suggested user, but what part of “he has that nude avatar and look: he’s _still_ featured as a suggested user” do you find to be unclear, or somehow in need of some stance to be taken?
“I love boobs and bums as much as the next man, but when I log into Twitter I don’t want to see Corddry’s bum or billions of fake silicon boobs and photoshopped ass’s in thongs trying to get me to click through to porn sites,” you say. Well, good for you. But why should Twitter edit its users’ content to ease the moral discomfort of a few? I’ve been known to post a few things that many, many users found very offensive, and they even had a small ‘block agarzola’ campaign to try to get Twitter to suspend my account. But Twitter didn’t, because my opinions shouldn’t have to conform to the moral standards of anyone. If Twitter did constantly censor its users’ content to keep everything squaky clean, I assure you Twitter would not be as popular as it is today.
But there is hope for moral prudes in denial: A little thing called personal responsibility. And one uses it to avoid unpleasant situations. Exercise it liberally.
Finally: Let’s not forget that Twitter doesn’t suspend the accounts that only spam links to porn sites. Twitter suspends accounts that only spam links to any products or services, whether they are of sexual content or not. That you object to accounts spamming with porn alone, to me, is further evidence that indeed your complaint is one of prudish morality.
Thanks for the comment. Let me clarify a few things for you first. The entire basis of your reply to me is based on the false assumption that I have a prudish attitude to this. I don't.
You quote me as saying that twitter must take a stand, they must, but you neglected to add that I said they must take a stand "one way or the other".
Next, I don't just object to accounts spamming with porn alone. I've written a number of posts bemoaning the amount of spam on Twitter and have called for the blocking of all types of spam accounst, from marketers to people pimping vacations in the past. It was just this post that I was talking about nudity.
Finally, I want Twitter to tell us what is acceptable, firstly because the terms of service are so ambiguous on this stuff, unlike most other networks. Secondly, as I stated at the beginning of the post, this is not about my sensibilities but those of others.
And thirdly, yet most importantly, because the one thing Twitter does state in it's terms is that you must be 13 or older to use the network. 13! No matter how prudish I may be (and frankly it wouldn't offend me if Corddry was full frontal nude in his avatar), you've got to appreciate that with an age limit of 13 accounts promoting porn are not acceptable, and whether or not naked avatars are acceptable is highly questionable.
Point #5 on this page http://twitter.com/account/picture (to the right on the sidebar.)
"Nudity or obscene images are not allowed." What's so difficult about that to understand?
Once again Twitter flaunts it's own rules for someone they deem 'important'.
Saying you’re not a prude does not cancel out the fact that then you proceed to express a significantly prudish point of view regarding this matter. Saying you’ve lived in in “countries where you’ll see full frontal nudity in commercials at breakfast time” proves nothing, and is akin to attempting to prove one is not homophobic or racist with the classic “I have plenty of gay/non-white friends.”
Sure, you said they must take a stand “one way or the other”, but like I said: what part of “we suggest everybody follow his account” strikes you as ‘unclear’? They clearly _have_ taken a stand. And the position they have adopted is in the direction of the other way: They seem to have determined that avatar nudity is A-OK with them (at least in the context of parody, as is Corddry’s case).
Finally, your whole 13-year-old argument is one of the many alarming symptoms of the increasingly victimized, interventionist attitude with which American society seems to expect our authorities (private and public) to protect us (and in this case: our children) from material we find objectionable. Just because Twitter thinks that 13 is a ripe enough age to gain access to their social network, doesn’t mean that parents should then delegate their parental responsibility only to demand that Twitter do a better job of protecting their children. If you don’t like your 13-year-old to be exposed to this nude material, then be a parent and exercise your authority by not allowing your kids to own a Twitter account.
It is _not_ Tiwtter’s job to protect us from Corddry’s fuzz-ridden nudity. Nothing beats personal responsibility. Exercise it!
First off you are in no position to question my prudishness or not. As I already stated, to me, it wouldn't matter if the guy was fully nude. It's not me I'm thinking about.
Do you have an inability to recognize that I am raising this as a point of conversation rather than trying to impose any values on anybody!
Let me make it very clear – if I were prudish about this I would have come out and said – "This is wrong, it must change, you can't have images like that on twitter" – I have not!
With regards to the 13 year old argument. This has got nothing to do with personal responsibility. But when a networks terms specifically state that the minimum age of it's users is 13, then it has a responsibility to attempt to ensure that content on that network falls within acceptable standards, as defined by laws of the country it is operating in, for that age group.
It's not a matter of having Twitter protect us, it's a matter of having twitter stick to it's own terms and conditions.
You said that them promoting this account states that they have taken as stand – well then please explain the meaning of the text, 5 paragraphs down on the photo upload page as linked to at the bottom of the article? Contradicts you more than just a little doesn't it.
And further to that, you've obviously never read any the other posts on my blog, I would suggest you do before telling me what my biases are. You would also realize that I am Irish, live in Europe and that I have a distinctly non-American view of the world. A few searches for American or xenophobic on this blog should illustrate that. I am one of the most open people you will meet and with regards to nudity have zero problem or compunction about it.
Unfortunately you are looking at this, firstly from your own misguided belief about my bias and secondly from your own entrenched point of view without thinking about how this sets a standard for the network. A network, who's goal I may add, is eventually to make money and who are not likely to do so, as they are very likely to alienate their users by disregarding their own rules or not creating any in the first place.
Finally, there is a time and a place for everything, including nudity and displays of nudity, but I question whether a network with a minimum age of 13 is where porn spam and other forms of nudity belong?
RT Finally I am free! @pauloflaherty Twitter endorses naked avatars (UPDATED) http://bit.ly/3Hnd6R
That’s a good point, but who’s to say that Twitter sees ‘nudity’ as ‘I can see your private parts?’ Maybe Corddry’s image is not the kind of nudity they mean.
Here is a link to a heap of definitions for nudity. As far as I can see Corddry's avatar breaches most, if not all of them.
If you still think it's because Twitter has a different definition of what nudity is to us, then that is exactly WHY Twitter has to make it clear what is acceptable or not!
Okay, I gonna start with… "WHAT?" They actually have countries that show those commercials? And at breakfast time too! LOL. Call me naive, but that's just… Err. Unbelievable. Not doubting you, I'm just saying.
Anyway, maybe Twitter's just overlooked it – or hasn't checked it yet, I don't really know. I agree with you though, they either take off that "no nudity" crap or they eliminate it altogether. I don't mind people posting that, but I have to say, I was pretty much shocked. LOL.Ma
Yes Marcy, I've lived in Denmark and Germany, among other places that are very open about sex. For them, they've dealt with the entire "porn" thing, and it is so far yesterdays news that they don't pay any attention to it. It's not worth noticing, nobody pays any attention to it and it affects nobody.. if you know what I mean.
And yes, twitter needs to decide.. they can't state one thing in their terms and then promote the opposite.. we need some constancy..
Thanks for you comment marcy
Pingback: Paul OFlaherty
Pingback: Paul OFlaherty
Excuse me, but who the funk are you?
I’m the author of this blog. Who the heck are you?
This is retarded. Twitter is not a website for Americans only. You can’t say “Yeah, I lived in countries, where you see pubic hair on TV, but this is America” about the Internet, because, well, it is not. So what if some guy put an obviously humorous photo on his own account. This is not even real nudity, nor is it erotic, I seriously doubt it would turn you gay upon seeing or disturb your metabolism. Same thing about your or anybody else’s children. Besides, if a parent allows their, say, 10-year olds to view a social networking site in the Internet, accidentally finding nude pictures is the poor kid’s least important problem. Worst of all is that you had the chance to live in a country with normal comprehension of nudity and you still held to the US pov.
PS: Germany and Denmark are not at all open about sex, it is just the United States that is puritan to the point of retarded-ness. So, please excuse us, inhabitants of all other countries of the world for not being able to understand your thinking.
First off, I’m not American, I’m Irish and don’t subscribe to any “American POV”. I live in America now but I did not when I wrote this post.
In fact when I wrote this post two years ago I was living in Ireland having just returned from living in Denmark for 7 years and Germany before that so I think, having lived in all the places I’ve talked about I’m fairly qualified to state who is open about sex and who isn’t.
Also, I never said –
My argument when writing this post was NEVER about sex and America it was about the suitability and place for such stuff on an open communications platform.