grrrr

[fflo]

That Beth Ditto magazine cover has been deemed to be in violation of the terms of use of Photobucket.



Do you suppose, all FAT and everything, she's more naked when she's naked and not showing naughty bits than other naked "regular" women not showing naughty bits would be?

Looks like this is the clause from the terms of use:

7.1 Photobucket may reject, refuse to post or delete any Content for any or no reason, including Content that in the sole judgment of Photobucket violates this Agreement or which may be offensive, illegal or violate the rights of any person or entity, or harm or threaten the safety of any person or entity. Photobucket assumes no responsibility for monitoring the Photobucket Services for inappropriate Content or conduct. However, on both free and PRO accounts, and regardless of whether the Content is public or private, Photobucket may choose to monitor such Content at any time, in its sole discretion. ...

It's an image of a magazine cover, so theoretically the objection could be something about the rights to that image, but you KNOW what caught the eye of the person scanning was the big fat naked glory. And big fat naked glory is, in the eye of many a beholder, offensive.

Maybe it was just the deletion "for any or no reason."

I often do things for any or no reason, so I should be more understanding.

(grrrr)

Comments

[fflo.livejournal.com]

your guess is as good as mine. in any case, they didn't appreciate it as much as you did. ;)