Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

The TechCrunch crew has a long history of "calling out" major companies on their product decisions, in the absence of any of the data or context in which such complex decisions are made.<p>P.S. I love how Tom has turned into the elder statesman of social networks.

He's <i>not</i> "seriously upset" about the photo. He thinks what's happening is ridiculous, and therefore took the time to ridicule it. He's clearly right. But it's not a moral crusade.

I like how humble Tom is about MySpace. All these years later, and he's still my only friend...<p>In all seriousness, he should be proud of what they accomplished. Yes, it kind of turned into a cesspool, but there was no model of how a social network <i>should</i> be until Facebook came along. MySpace was an evolution of Geocities, more than it was an attempt to have the kind of "respectable" social presence that facebook shot for. MySpace was still the startup that proved social would be huge.

Pretty sure this would fall under Apple's "objectionable content" policies for their app store.<p>Wonder if MG would complain about that policy, too? :-)

Completely misses the fundamental difference between "not allowing", "not displaying" and bluntly "<i>removing</i>" the photo.<p>Online companies seem to be completely insensitive to what is pretty intuitive in the physical realm: you may tell me what not to do in your shop, but <i>don't touch my stuff</i>.

<i>removing offensive photos</i><p>It's not offensive to me. I'm all grown up now.

An image showing a middle finger: banned.<p>News content from Fox perpetuating lies that cause soldiers and civilians to <i>die</i>: front page in search results.<p>Google has demonstrated with the photo that its willing to act as a censor. Now that we've agreed that censorship is ok, can we now talk about what we would like to censor?

Sorry but I still don't understand why deleting that picture is such big deal? Google has the right to build their community with the rules that they want and the people eager to accept those rules. Mr Sieger has also the right to complain and he did so that should close the case right?<p>I made an analogy yesterday between this site and reddit and the differences between the cultures on both sites. A lot of people downvote that post (not sure why because I wasn't say anything offensive) and that's the kind of things that you have to accept in social sites... There are rules.. You either accept them or just move on...

This page reliably crashes safari on my iPad 1. Does anyone else have this problem or am I going insane?

I think you guys are all thinking about this the wrong way. Siegler's post is about finding the lines that define acceptable content not caring about his exact photo.<p>Knowing what a company like google defines as inappropriate is important for being able to make informed choices about what products you should use and who you should be giving all your personal data to for free.

"If you had a T-shirt that said "I hate White People" and you walked into a mall wearing it, the security would probably ask you to leave, or ask you to cover up your shirt."<p>And that's the problem with Google+ here. They didn't ask anything. They did the t-shirt in a mall equivalent of stealing his t-shirt while he wasn't looking.<p>It seems pretty obvious how this should work:<p>(1) Google enables a flag for offensive photos (some automated system might work in tandem with this).<p>(2) Someone who's offended by a photo (or automated system) flags it.<p>(3) The user sees that someone has flagged it, might change it himself.<p>(4) Google sees the flag and reviews the image for possible action. Some sort of adjudication record is created and available for both the user the image belongs to and anyone who reported it.<p>(5) The user has some recourse to appeal if Google takes action to remove the user's picture.<p>Google, having a terrible customer service background, just went with the big brother approach.

I would love to see the mall that turns away people wearing a shirt that gives the finger. Is this a very exaggerated example or does this thing exist out there, in the modern world?

Like others, I'm surprised that G+ is spending time solving this problem. Why don't they flip the switch on their safesearch technology on G+ and call it a day?

Anyone else find it funny that Tom uses the same old photo of him in front of a whiteboard?

You see "Google has limited resources" and "cannot warn you before removal".<p>Made my day.<p>ps: most removals are actually automated, and warning are (as in would be) obviously automated.<p>And of course, nothing bad with a finger up (or even in a naked body in fact, but hey). I much prefer the "adult filter" of YouTube, which uhm, is also automated (user vote based).

What i 'd like to know is what Tom is doing in that - now historic - profile photo.

I don't think you'd actually get in trouble for an "I hate White People" t-shirt. It would probably be seen as a political statement. We have whole college majors devoted to elucidating the evils of white people. It's hip to hate them.

Apple doesn't allow offensive apps in its app store either, but somehow, this has never bothered MG Siegler.<p>Double standards.

When this sort of tech pundit makes himself the center of a non-story I do my best to ignore it, I recommend that everyone do the same. Tech blogging has deteriorated to parroting PR releases and slobbering over iStuff, I draw the line at appeasing the attention whores.

Tom makes a great point here. Policies are policies and the difference is that this policy actually has action behind it. Oh well. Social networks don't really hide their policies and this one isn't all that radical at that. If you don't like it, find another service or comply with the rules, (or if you're really that stressed about it make your own social network).<p>If some random 16 year old from Middle-O-Nowhere Indiana complained on his blog about the same thing we wouldn't even read past the first paragraph. But MG Siegler does it and it becomes a real issue? The only difference between Siegler and the hypothetical teenager is that Siegler is well known and can write so his tantrum gets play.<p>Really, the issue of the offensive profile picture shouldnt be the issue at all. The issue should be whether Siegler is allowed to use his notoriety to dupe us into thinking this is an issue worthy of discussion.

So much for how "social" and "private" they intend google+ to be.<p>Do not expect a conversation with close friends there.<p>it's an open mall. officially.<p>And the first people migrated from facebook boasting the privacy concerns.

MySpace was never a cesspool... it's now a musician's website for posting about bands.<p>The only thing more stupid than the internet comments on Hacker News is Google itself: the kings of know-it-all dumbasses!

Really? An "'I hate white people' t-shirt" parallel?<p>Don't even get me started on that atrocious "we don't need to see this" line of argumentation. If the Google+ is going to censor (let's call things by their proper names) pictures that "people don't need to see", where's the goddamned line?<p>Imbecile.<p>That such a poorly constructed argument makes its way to the Hacker News homepage is worrisome. I had the hope that people who use logic for a living would have higher standards.