> "They shouldn't be treated as something shameful or sexual," she said.
Curious that the BBC is completely ignoring the UK government insane demands for mandatory OS level client side scanning malware on every device to block all nudity. This tattooist may find themselves unable to even view their work on their own smartphone.
> Carter says her posts are automatically removed "nine times out of 10". She always appeals the decision, but "it's as if nobody even reads it".
There are multiple large communities of people who have suffered false bans with no functioning appeal system to solve the issue. You are basically screwed unless you or someone you know has connections to the company that can resolve the issue. Politicians and those with enough fame or money don't understand this, because their accounts get special treatment.
The nipples in question are not real but realistic pictures, applied after surgery that removes real nipples. So it's a medical cosmetic tatto, not a bizarre erotic kink.
There is a wide range between "medical procedure" and "bizzare kink". Most of the world can handle a nipple. Hell, babies suck on em. It's disturbing how repressed attitudes are being exported from the US.
>It's disturbing how repressed attitudes are being exported from the US.
Declaring everything you deem negative to be a devilish foreign import will get you nowhere fast. A pastime for those who are drawn more to the act of ascribing blame than solving what they claim to be significant issues.
The BBC is a good outlet, but their big blindspot is that it's pro-establishment. Now, when your government isn't a flaming pile of dogshit, this is less egregious of a bias than in the rare contemporary time when your President, say, wants to build monuments to himself and rapes children.
It's a whiff, here, for sure. But that's the reason why: the government is Good, and it certainly won't screw up spectacularly.
A woman could be nude for all intents and purposes, but as long as her areola and crotch are still covered by some strained piece cloth that leaves little of what it is supposed to hide to the imagination, it's still a-ok. I can't tell if its an elobrate charade or if the mere thought of female anatomy actually compromised some people's intelligence to such a degree we ended up with this delicious clownshow.
The hypersensitivity to only overly specific areas of skin of some US-based services was bewildering to the average European a decade ago, but we really should be over it by now. The time for frustration and confusion is over, and it ought to be the era of open amusement.
It only solves half the equation - being able to host the pictures somewhere. Getting the work seen is the other half, and arguably the most important for such artists. Most people are not fumbling on their personal website without getting to see the work in the first place.
It's also a workaround, and completely misses the point.
What a fucking stupid Internet we've ended up with, with vocabulary like "unalive" or "corn", and influencers beeping every controversial word so the censorship machine doesn't stop their "content" from "going viral"...
Meanwhile OnlyFans is booming. And we try to look away but news of the ongoing bloodbath from the killing fields still sicker through.
Pretty much any content or community that regularly self polices thought crime language I immediately dislike and block forever. I have slightly more tolerance for beeping over swear words, but not much.
> "They shouldn't be treated as something shameful or sexual," she said.
Curious that the BBC is completely ignoring the UK government insane demands for mandatory OS level client side scanning malware on every device to block all nudity. This tattooist may find themselves unable to even view their work on their own smartphone.
> Carter says her posts are automatically removed "nine times out of 10". She always appeals the decision, but "it's as if nobody even reads it".
There are multiple large communities of people who have suffered false bans with no functioning appeal system to solve the issue. You are basically screwed unless you or someone you know has connections to the company that can resolve the issue. Politicians and those with enough fame or money don't understand this, because their accounts get special treatment.
> UK government insane demands for mandatory OS level client side scanning malware on every device to block all nudity.
The fuck?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly752ydjw6o
The nipples in question are not real but realistic pictures, applied after surgery that removes real nipples. So it's a medical cosmetic tatto, not a bizarre erotic kink.
There is a wide range between "medical procedure" and "bizzare kink". Most of the world can handle a nipple. Hell, babies suck on em. It's disturbing how repressed attitudes are being exported from the US.
>It's disturbing how repressed attitudes are being exported from the US.
Declaring everything you deem negative to be a devilish foreign import will get you nowhere fast. A pastime for those who are drawn more to the act of ascribing blame than solving what they claim to be significant issues.
In fact, every nipple on the internet is not real, but just a flat, realistic picture.
Unfortunately for the tattooist, the UK government considers it "harmful" nudity. I'm not sure why the BBC reporter is ignoring that fact.
Does it? UK law doesn’t, and the BBC shows pictures of it.
The BBC is a good outlet, but their big blindspot is that it's pro-establishment. Now, when your government isn't a flaming pile of dogshit, this is less egregious of a bias than in the rare contemporary time when your President, say, wants to build monuments to himself and rapes children.
It's a whiff, here, for sure. But that's the reason why: the government is Good, and it certainly won't screw up spectacularly.
Follow the money
Where's the money in censoring nipples?
The funny thing about Instagram is that it's both:
1) One the most prudish social networks, in the West at least
2) The primary funnel to OnlyFans
The irony went over my head this whole time, now that you mention it! Kudos for the observation.
BBC buries the lede slightly when its clearly Meta's censoring in specific.
Pretty realistic work in aesthetically restorative tattoos I will say that.
A woman could be nude for all intents and purposes, but as long as her areola and crotch are still covered by some strained piece cloth that leaves little of what it is supposed to hide to the imagination, it's still a-ok. I can't tell if its an elobrate charade or if the mere thought of female anatomy actually compromised some people's intelligence to such a degree we ended up with this delicious clownshow.
The hypersensitivity to only overly specific areas of skin of some US-based services was bewildering to the average European a decade ago, but we really should be over it by now. The time for frustration and confusion is over, and it ought to be the era of open amusement.
Get a website.
And how do you drive traffic to it? Advertising on Instagram?
Given how poorly companies like Meta police content in ads, that might actually work.
It only solves half the equation - being able to host the pictures somewhere. Getting the work seen is the other half, and arguably the most important for such artists. Most people are not fumbling on their personal website without getting to see the work in the first place.
It's also a workaround, and completely misses the point.
Most people aren’t going to randomly need nipples tattooing.
What a fucking stupid Internet we've ended up with, with vocabulary like "unalive" or "corn", and influencers beeping every controversial word so the censorship machine doesn't stop their "content" from "going viral"...
Meanwhile OnlyFans is booming. And we try to look away but news of the ongoing bloodbath from the killing fields still sicker through.
Pretty much any content or community that regularly self polices thought crime language I immediately dislike and block forever. I have slightly more tolerance for beeping over swear words, but not much.
We have communities that sexualize all kind of things, like kids, that’s what we cannot have nice things.
We do. And they're full of politicians, financiers, religious leaders, and media personalities, not so much street tattooists.