Should I or shouldn't I

[Austman]

Sure. But is it right to impose what we see as wrong in our culture in another?

When there is scientific evidence that it's dangerous and the victims are total innocents, then perhaps it should be.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure. But is it right to impose what we see as wrong in our culture in another?

Pretty sure there are things that other cultures might see as harmful in our culture but is it their right to point that out to us?

Again, an interesting issue and one that's hugely complex. It must be right that there are certain things which we see and are right to try and change, even in other cultures. Domestic violence, child labour (but even that could be qualified where the child actually needs to gather food or water for the survival of the family), sweat shops, genital mutilation etc.

It doesn't mean we are free from blame here in Australia, which in itself is another complexity.

 

[Pushka]

When there is scientific evidence that it's dangerous and the victims are total innocents, then perhaps it should be.

And others could point to the consumption of alcohol or pork for instance as being carcinogenic or a danger to society.

I would not have liked to have seen the kids in the smoking room either but if not in Australia then I would not do anything.

OP, was there a sign on the door that children were not able to enter? That might change my thinking.

 

[irv]

Sure. But is it right to impose what we see as wrong in our culture in another?

Pretty sure there are things that other cultures might see as harmful in our culture but is it their right to point that out to us?

From little things, big things grow

 

[Austman]

And others could point to the consumption of alcohol or pork for instance as being carcinogenic or a danger to society.

Yes, but we are talking about children who don't make the decisions on what they consume or are exposed to.

And point out that many societies have taken the steps to prohibit alcohol for children when it used be be freely available and even encouraged for children for hundreds of years.

We hopefully know better today.

 

[Pushka]

But we have no say in how other parents parent their children at an individual level.

 

[RooFlyer]

You should NOT be taking pictures of other people's children to post online.

Is that so?

There have been possibly hundreds of photos of children posted on this forum, in various threads. I believe some of them weren't even clad very well :shock: . Is it against forum rules? I looked and couldn't see so, but I stand to be corrected.

Can our moral guardians please advise the age persons need to be to have their images allowed to be reproduced here? I will adjust my Trip Reports accordingly to make them "children free".

Because of morally superior browbeating I missed seeing the image which illustrated the point that was being made by leadman. I suggest those who don't like what's posted should either ignore the thread or complain to admin.

Sure, but he is in Japan not Australia. It doesn't matter. It is wrong for leadman to post photo's of other people's children on the internet. It doesn't matter how wrong the parents are or how self righteous leadman is.

"Wrong" ? "Self righteous", eh?

 

[incumbent]

Because of morally superior browbeating I missed seeing the image

And yet you feel comfortable jumping to specious conclusions.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because of morally superior browbeating I missed seeing the image which illustrated the point that was being made by leadman. I suggest those who don't like what's posted should either ignore the thread or complain to admin.

The identity of the individual, in this case a child, was not required for the purpose of the illustration. The face could have been blurred or otherwise edited.

There may be no specific AFF rule, but for me it's an issue of respecting privacy. The child was the main subject - not incidental - and didn't give their permission for the publication.

 

[RooFlyer]

And yet you feel comfortable jumping to specious conclusions.

Do I feel comfortable? Might you be jumping to a specious conclusion there?

The identity of the individual, in this case a child, was not required for the purpose of the illustration. The face could have been blurred or otherwise edited.

There may be no specific AFF rule, but for me it's an issue of respecting privacy. The child was the main subject - not incidental - and didn't give their permission for the publication.

Well, I'm thinking the author of the post was in the best position of deciding what was required for illustration of his/her post. I didn't see the image, but since the post was about exposing children to cigarette smoke, I could excuse leadman for thinking that a photo of a child exposed to cigarette smoke was kinda relevant.

And with respect to "privacy" and "giving permission for the publication" - please have a think about the implications of that. Have a look at Trip Reports, 'view from my office' and basically any image of the inside of a plane. We need to get permission of everyone in the image before we can post it?

This forum has rules, which are enforced by moderators; there are mechanisms for complaining about posts if someone thinks that it is "inappropriate". My point is that my understanding and following of this important and legitimate travel health issue has been negatively impacted because some members deemed something 'inappropriate' . Let's leave it to moderators, eh?

And lest I incur mod's ire for being off topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, I'm thinking the author of the post was in the best position of deciding what was required for illustration of his/her post. I didn't see the image, but since the post was about exposing children to cigarette smoke, I could excuse leadman for thinking that a photo of a child exposed to cigarette smoke was kinda relevant.

And with respect to "privacy" and "giving permission for the publication" - please have a think about the implications of that. Have a look at Trip Reports, 'view from my office' and basically any image of the inside of a plane. We need to get permission of everyone in the image before we can post it?

The photo with a child, in the smoking room was relevant to the post. However - the point you seem to be overlooking - the exact identity of the child (face picture) was not required. The face could have been blurred or otherwise edited. This would not have detracted from the illustration in any way. But it would have preserved the privacy.

There is a difference between a person being incidental in a photo (for example a shot of an airport concourse), and a person being the sole subject of a photo. The latter I believe should raise a personal question as to whether there is a privacy issue, and whether permission should be sought.

IIRC, airliners.net appears to have some rules around the taking of photos inside aircraft. Pictures don't readily identify passengers - which is why most of the shots are either taken when the seats are unoccupied, or taken from the rear of the cabin, so that all you can see are the back of heads, not faces. There is absolutely no reason for any trip report inside an aircraft to include faces if the author takes a little bit of effort.

 

[RooFlyer]

The photo with a child, in the smoking room was relevant to the post. However - the point you seem to be overlooking - the exact identity of the child (face picture) was not required. The face could have been blurred or otherwise edited. This would not have detracted from the illustration in any way. But it would have preserved the privacy.

There is a difference between a person being incidental in a photo (for example a shot of an airport concourse), and a person being the sole subject of a photo. The latter I believe should raise a personal question as to whether there is a privacy issue, and whether permission should be sought.

IIRC, airliners.net appears to have some rules around the taking of photos inside aircraft. Pictures don't readily identify passengers - which is why most of the shots are either taken when the seats are unoccupied, or taken from the rear of the cabin, so that all you can see are the back of heads, not faces. There is absolutely no reason for any trip report inside an aircraft to include faces if the author takes a little bit of effort.

Again, I was denied seeing the original image because some members chose to stamp their personal standards on this thread. So I don't know what was in the image, but I doubt the "identity" of the child was posted. On the other hand, there are plenty of "face pictures" of children (say, under 18) on AFF forums. Is this "no faces of children" a new standard for AFF being developed?

And again, I need to ask, what is a "child" - what age a person needs to be to be "allowed" to post a "face image" for your standards?

airliners.net - don't know it, can't see the relevance to this discussion, sorry.

And nothing you are suggesting would appear to satisfy this member:

You should NOT be taking pictures of other people's children to post online.

So whose standard do we use, please?

 

[samh004]

Again, I was denied seeing the original image because some members chose to stamp their personal standards on this thread. So I don't know what was in the image, but I doubt the "identity" of the child was posted. On the other hand, there are plenty of "face pictures" of children (say, under 18) on AFF forums. Is this "no faces of children" a new standard for AFF being developed?

And again, I need to ask, what is a "child" - what age a person needs to be to be "allowed" to post a "face image" for your standards?

airliners.net - don't know it, can't see the relevance to this discussion, sorry.

So whose standard do we use, please?

I can only offer my personal view, but having seen the original image, it was hard to make out much of the child through the glass window into the area he was sitting in with his family. Certainly, his identity wasn't revealed and he wasn't the centre of focus (it was an unremarkable image that had a lot of things going on in it).

If you would like an official opinion on what is and isn't acceptable, I can seek clarification with the other moderators/admin.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again, I was denied seeing the original image because some members chose to stamp their personal standards on this thread. So I don't know what was in the image, but I doubt the "identity" of the child was posted. On the other hand, there are plenty of "face pictures" of children (say, under 18) on AFF forums. Is this "no faces of children" a new standard for AFF being developed?

And again, I need to ask, what is a "child" - what age a person needs to be to be "allowed" to post a "face image" for your standards?

airliners.net - don't know it, can't see the relevance to this discussion, sorry.

And nothing you are suggesting would appear to satisfy this member:



So whose standard do we use, please?

The child was a youngish, under 10 I'd say. If privacy was a concern, it was suggested an option was for the picture to be edited rather than removed entirely.

The relevance of airliners.net is that it is a forum for people to post pictures and trip reports, just like AFF. It has rules around the publication of people and face shots (in general, people should not be the main purpose of the shot).

But the issue is, why do we need a 'rule' on AFF to determine personal standards or to at least ask someone's permission before we post a picture in which they are the sole subject?

I accept different people will have varying degrees of acceptability on those issues. Personally, I value privacy and someone asking me permission.

I can only offer my personal view, but having seen the original image, it was hard to make out much of the child through the glass window into the area he was sitting in with his family. Certainly, his identity wasn't revealed and he wasn't the centre of focus (it was an unremarkable image that had a lot of things going on in it).

Viewing it on a largish screen PC the picture was clear. The person could have been subsequently identified.

 

[samh004]

Viewing it on a largish screen PC the picture was clear. The person could have been subsequently identified.

I was viewing on my iPhone, within the app. Didn't seem that clear at the time.

 

[incumbent]

It was clear enough for one of the cultural anthropologists on the thread to conclude that the child didn't look Japanese.

In any case, the OP made his or her own decision to remove the photo based on the feedback provided.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

If you would like an official opinion on what is and isn't acceptable, I can seek clarification with the other moderators/admin.

FWIW, although I'm not a 'social media' user per se it appears to me that various on-line forums develop their own 'common law' through usage and incremental small decisions by those running the site, which compliment the written T&Cs. I've been on the sharp end of a couple of rulings, and I learnt more of the 'common law' by that. Personally, I think a "ruling" here would open a can of worms; best to leave each case to the mods to deal with if they choose and to members to complain to them if they find content offensive.

Several people in this thread objected to a posting of an image of a child in a smoking lounge (I gather), and the op generously removed the image. But I and similar later-comers were denied an illustration of the issue in question - and a picture being worth a thousand words, it detracted from the understanding and magnitude of the 'problem' the op introduced. The OP asked a question - but impossible to consider it without the image!

Again, there have been very many pictures of kids posted on AFF to date; from the descriptions made of this thread's image, I can't imagine it was much different from those past ones and therefore needed to be treated any different. But it was the op's decision and I apologise to the OP for the ot excursion by me!

 

[JohnK]

I can only offer my personal view, but having seen the original image, it was hard to make out much of the child through the glass window into the area he was sitting in with his family. Certainly, his identity wasn't revealed and he wasn't the centre of focus (it was an unremarkable image that had a lot of things going on in it).

If you would like an official opinion on what is and isn't acceptable, I can seek clarification with the other moderators/admin.

There was nothing wrong with the photo in the opening post. We see many photos in trip reportss on AFF of many people including children. No one has ever said anything. We don't know the identity of the child. Don't understand all the fuss.

 

[opusman]

Don't understand all the fuss.

Many people enjoy being morally outraged. I think it makes them feel important.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

We don't know the identity of the child.

We don't know the identity of the child as in the child's name, but they were identifiable in the sense that had a random person been in the lounge when the picture was posted, you would have known that was the child in the picture.