Goodbye, Bluehost.

[jonsworld]

I just have to get it out of my system: I am a photographer, and a serious one I might add, doing advertising, fashion, etc. for many years. Lately I also have had a web page presenting my more artistic side, hosted by Bluehost. And they have been quite good to me, good price and good support. But... Yesterday I got an email from them saying I am violating their terms and unless I remove certain files they will shut down my site within 14 days. No pardon there. Somebody (or a machine doing not face recognition, but, shall we say, breast recognition) in their offices has seen some skin or other terrible things in some of the photos I present. They call it "adult content/nudity". Which some of them are, but hey, come on, this is not pornography or other stuff dangerous to the common public. This is what I most humbly would call art. And what I think is most ridiculous is that somebody actually is sitting there (or perhaps a machine?) using time deciding what is proper and what is not. To this person I would say: It is not a bad thing to use some sense. Anyway, I have to say goodbye within 13 days now, and this is perhaps not the right forum, but if anybody has any suggestions for another web host, or any other comments for that matter, it would be appreciated.
Oh, that was nice to get it out! To judge for yourself, go to www.sensual-photos.com

[Early Out]

That's pretty sad. There are only a few places in the world in which those images would be considered inappropriate, and most of those places are under the sway of the Taliban, or something close to it.

Alas, we have some pockets of the American Taliban here.

[JND]

Personally, I am not offended by your photographs. I find your content to be well within the context of your established environment as a professional photographer and artist. That said, however, the BlueHost terms of service clearly prohibit nudity:


BlueHost.Com Terms of Service (http://www.bluehost.com/terms.html)
Section 9: Prohibited Uses
SubSection 3: Prohibited Offerings.

No Subscriber may utilize the Services to provide, sell or offer to sell the following: controlled substances; illegal drugs and drug contraband; weapons; pirated materials; instructions on making, assembling or obtaining illegal goods or weapons to attack others; information used to violate the copyright(s) of, violate the trademark(s) of or to destroy others' intellectual property or information; information used to illegally harm any people or animals; pornography, nudity, sexual products, programs or services; escort services or other content deemed adult related.

I fail to see what harm could bestow the host should you be permitted to retain your site as-is. That decision is one that can be made by only one person. Matt Heaton, president, and one who blogged about "adult hosting (http://www.mattheaton.com/?p=58)" in November of 2006.

This, a pretty lengthy entry as far as responses go. Questions were asked, none answered; some asking the same question(s) asked here.

I wish you luck.

[jonsworld]

Thanks for the comments, both of you.

He he, reading the terms of service you supplied, JND, it looks as if I'm suddenly in the same class as Don Corleone. Weapons! Nudity! Illegal drugs! Pornography!

As I said, it is possible to use some common sense sometimes.

But then again, there are plenty of web hosts out there...

[Ferdinand]

I guess you didn't read the TOS when you signed up at BH. I am not a photographer but in a similar situation, since I write about photography and I have to be very careful which images I put on my blog (especially in regard to artists like Nobuyoshi Araki :cool:). I will stick to BH for the time being...

But I guess you will have no choice but to leave BH.

PS: BH is located in Utah... :rolleyes:

[EricJ]

Did you contact the abuse dept.? it wasn't a machine that suspended your site, it was someone in the abuse department. They should be able to tell you exactly what images, and where they are, that are violating the TOS. And if you remove them, i dont' think they will delete your account.

[Early Out]

They should be able to tell you exactly what images, and where they are, that are violating the TOS. And if you remove them, i dont' think they will delete your account.
You're missing the point. There are no images in jonsworld's album that would be considered pornographic anywhere outside of Kandahar or Orem. The pity is that a serious photographer has to submit to some weird, provincial notion of "decency."

Gee, maybe if he put the right kind of underwear on his models, that would be OK? :rolleyes:

[siguie]

Yup! what they said nothing pornographic ... I thought the images were really quite nice too :)

[Barbouille]

Just my 2 cents worth...

I do not see anything offensive or pornographic on your site. What's wrong with BH ?

[Charpix]

In some minds it is a fine line between art and porno. I consider your site art, and it is beautifully done. I would simply suggest that if you removed the images with nipples, maybe that would satisfy BlueHost? Just a suggestion.... I personally have no problem with it from an artist's point of view.

[MrDelish]

Along the lines of Charpix's comment, I imagine BlueHost prefers to forbid nudity entirely rather than attempt to distinguish between art and pornography in the terms of service.

[Early Out]

I would simply suggest that if you removed the images with nipples, maybe that would satisfy BlueHost?
As I said to someone else in a PM, to me, this sounds exactly like, "Just put on the burqa, and you won't get hassled in the street any more."

[Ferdinand]

In some minds it is a fine line between art and porno. I consider your site art, and it is beautifully done. I would simply suggest that if you removed the images with nipples, maybe that would satisfy BlueHost?

IMHO you are missing the point in regard to the photographs; naked bodies (and nipples :rolleyes:) are an integral part of the artwork and I guess that jonsworld isn't planning to remove any images.

Anway I presume that only provider from Saudi Arabia and similar countries have more strict rules in regard to nudity than BH. For me the extremely strict rules are the only major downside of BH.
The more I think about it the more I am thinking about moving too.
:(

@jonsworld
Please let me know which provider you will move to.

[felgall]

It people actually read the terms of service they are agreeing to when signing up for web hosting then they wouldn't have problems like tis one. BlueHost have always made it fairly clear in their TOS that nudity of any kind is not allowed on their servers.

When choosing a new host for such sites make sure you read their TOS carefully to make sure that they don't have the same conditions there.

The real problem that web hosting providers have is that there is no clear cut position at which they can draw the line as to what photos do or do not constitute pornograph that everyone would aggree with and so many hosting providers (including BlueHost) set the line at a point where everyone agrees that it isn't.

[Early Out]

BlueHost have always made it fairly clear in their TOS that nudity of any kind is not allowed on their servers.
Would this be OK? I think I can see some skin, so I'm not sure....

[felgall]

Would this be OK? I think I can see some skin, so I'm not sure....

Good one. :):):):)

[Ferdinand]

It people actually read the terms of service they are agreeing to when signing up for web hosting then they wouldn't have problems like tis one. BlueHost have always made it fairly clear in their TOS that nudity of any kind is not allowed on their servers.

When choosing a new host for such sites make sure you read their TOS carefully to make sure that they don't have the same conditions there.



Actually, I have read the TOS carefully *before* I signed up, but at that time didn't think that the TOS would become a problem for me like it is now.

BTW, can you name another *major* provider with the same TOS?

[Early Out]

Most hosts prohibit pornography, but it's rare to find one that prohibits "nudity." That's a particularly troublesome provision, because it has no legal definition. After all, a person wearing socks, a shirt, and a hat is not "nude."

[Evil_Dictator]

I just have to get it out of my system: I am a photographer, and a serious one I might add, doing advertising, fashion, etc. for many years. Lately I also have had a web page presenting my more artistic side, hosted by Bluehost. And they have been quite good to me, good price and good support. But... Yesterday I got an email from them saying I am violating their terms and unless I remove certain files they will shut down my site within 14 days. No pardon there. Somebody (or a machine doing not face recognition, but, shall we say, breast recognition) in their offices has seen some skin or other terrible things in some of the photos I present. They call it "adult content/nudity". Which some of them are, but hey, come on, this is not pornography or other stuff dangerous to the common public. This is what I most humbly would call art. And what I think is most ridiculous is that somebody actually is sitting there (or perhaps a machine?) using time deciding what is proper and what is not. To this person I would say: It is not a bad thing to use some sense. Anyway, I have to say goodbye within 13 days now, and this is perhaps not the right forum, but if anybody has any suggestions for another web host, or any other comments for that matter, it would be appreciated.
Oh, that was nice to get it out! To judge for yourself, go to www.sensual-photos.com

Actually Matt stuck up for you and turned your site back on. He realizes there is a difference and sometimes the Abuse department follows the letter of the law too closely.

[Early Out]

... sometimes the Abuse department follows the letter of the law too closely.
What law? You've stumbled onto the heart of the problem. If BH prohibited anything that met the legal definition of pornography, it would be difficult, but defensible (the courts have struggled for years to define it). But when BH decides it's going to prohibit anything it deems "immoral," you've stepped into the quicksand.

[Evil_Dictator]

The law is the TOS and the anti-pornography laws in Utah

[Early Out]

The law is ... the anti-pornography laws in Utah
Yup. Very interesting.

And who passes the laws in the State of Utah? Who dominates the legislature?

Like I said....

[Ferdinand]

The law is the TOS and the anti-pornography laws in Utah

So, no nipples in any publication in Utah? Are Playboy, greek sculptures and Impressionist paintings, e.g. banned in Utah?

Welcome to Utah, Online Porn Capital of the USA (http://www.lockergnome.com/theoracle/2009/05/28/welcome-to-utah-online-porn-capital-of-the-usa/)
:D

[Early Out]

Oh, the clumsiness! In my post, above, I mentioned that Evil Dictator is a BH employee. There are quite a few BH employees who have been posting in here lately, but for reasons unknown, they're supposed to keep quiet about it. It's not too tough to figure out - look at who's logged on, and pay attention to their IP addresses. There's one that you'll come to recognize.

So, Evil Dictator edited my post. But of course, any regular poster wouldn't be able to edit someone else's post, so he left his fingerprints all over it. :rolleyes:

Heads up, BH. If anyone edits or deletes one of my posts, I'm outta here - you can find someone else to do this job.

I don't approve of BH employees "lurking" in these forums. Time to come out of the closet, boys.

[Ferdinand]

So, Evil Dictator edited my post. But of course, any regular poster wouldn't be able to edit someone else's post, so he left his fingerprints all over it. :rolleyes:

Heads up, BH. If anyone edits or deletes one of my posts, I'm outta here - you can find someone else to do this job.

I don't approve of BH employees "lurking" in these forums. Time to come out of the closet, boys.

Wow, a mod is being edited by a BH employee? We must have hit a really raw nerve of the company.
:cool:

I guess the "evil dictator" has chosen his nick for a reason. :eek:
Who controls this forum?

[Early Out]

Who controls this forum?
I used to know the answer to that question. Now, it's not very clear.

[felgall]

Heads up, BH. If anyone edits or deletes one of my posts, I'm outta here - you can find someone else to do this job.

I don't approve of BH employees "lurking" in these forums. Time to come out of the closet, boys.

Well said. They really do need to make up their minds who is running the forum and whether it us supposed to be an official BlueHost forum run by BlueHost staff or a user forum run by and for users.

[redsox9]

I'm late to the dance but I have to agree with felgall and Early Out. Either BH takes full control of these forums or they let us moderate them without prejudice. I think the three of us have done an admirable job of keeping order here (on a volunteer basis, mind you) so it's time for you boys in Utah to make a decision.

[Evil_Dictator]

I'm trying to be helpful without bringing attention to myself or interfering too much, but if the opinion is i'm not being helpful, then i'll just stay out of it and spend my time on other things.

[farcaster]

Apologies for jumping into this. I've been following it with interest.

Maybe it's time for the mods and BH people to come to amicable terms via some private email. There's nothing like throwing gas on a fire while it's burning.

[JND]

So apparently, though this isn't a support forum (as indicated by the number of support requests here that have been locked, due to the "no support issue"), BlueHost employees are providing support via the boards which seems to be a contradiction of currently established moderation policy.

This isn't really anything new. If you go back a couple of years and read the threads by the original members, you'll find plenty of employee related chit-chat as well as user support. In addition to random discussion.

So my question is, will Evil Dictator remain offering support via the boards?

If so, this board should then be realized as a support forum in addition to a user to user forum (which incidentally, is nonetheless support).

Questions (to ED) are, does Blue Host now permit nudity under special circumstances? Or nudity overall, regardless of context? And will this new addendum make it into the TOS?

And while I'm here... why does Blue Host look for "world1" icons on my account?

Thanks!

[Sageth]

It's clear to me that this isn't the first incident, as the mods have seemed to unite over this topic, but I still need to ask. Why can't someone who works at Bluehost also chime in at times to help people on the forum? I think part of the problem here is that there's no solid way to have metrics around forum postings. How do you measure someone's ability to close and resolve tickets? By the number of posts they make?

I work in support and I often do not provide my direct information to our customers. The customers are routed through the help desk if they need to get in touch with me. In some circumstances, depending on what's happening, I may give them my direct contact. This makes sure that I can do my job without having to deal with basic calls that can be resolved by 1st or 2nd level support and so that I don't have calls for applications/systems/processes that I don't support.

It's also evident that people would like an "official" BH presence on the boards. This may not be a bad thing, but then you'll have people posting their passwords and other server information that BH may not want to be public. It's a fine line.

Overall, I don't see this as being a big deal.


Back to the topic at hand. JND - I may be wrong, but I don't think ED is in the position to answer your questions. This would be something that would have to be addressed and figured out internally before they even consider making changes. It's probably easier to leave the TOS as-is and then make exceptions from there. If you start off with the exceptions, it gets abused.

That's my two cents, anyway.

[Early Out]

Why can't someone who works at Bluehost also chime in at times to help people on the forum?
They can, and should. What they should not be doing is masquerading as customers. I think you'd be very surprised to discover how many "just users" in here are actually BH employees. My count of registered users, so far, is 61, and that's just from the one primary BH office IP address (even the mods are not told who's a BH employee, and who isn't - we have to do a little detective work). Some haven't posted, some posted a few times and then disappeared, a couple of them are up-front about who they are. But you get the picture.

[cbphoto]

It's the prerogative of BlueHost to what they'll host and what they won't. Move on. There are plenty of hosting companies that'll host your work. Other than you having to take an hour and register your domain name with another hosting IP, it's no big deal.

[alligosh]

First let me apologize for any misunderstandings that have happened, either intentionally or otherwise.

Bluehost has it's official support channels (phones, chat, tickets) where it can track, update, and funnel to the proper people. The forums were created in order to allow and encourage customers to help each other out. There are always topics and issues that any helpdesk, no matter how large, cannot spend the time and money to assist users with. The biggest example of this with Bluehost is coding and custom scripts, although there are other areas as well. The forums are to help fill in the gaps.

Bluehost owns and maintains the server that the forums are on. We provide bandwidth and licensing. We do NOT moderate the forums, except in extreme cases of abuse, spam, or DoS attack.

We have really good moderators. They do an excellent job, and our policy is to let them do their job.

Employees are often encouraged to participate on the forums as regular users. They know the systems well, and can often help out in unofficial ways that they are not able to do on the official channels. They are not in charge, nor should they be. They have no authority over the forums, and are not an official presence. They are just people helping other people, and nothing they do or say in the forums is to be taken as being from Bluehost.

Some of them have forgotten that, and it is being re-iterated to them. Unless the title with their name is green for the moderators, or blue for official employees, they have no authority. They are to be treated the same as everyone else. If they cause problems for anyone, especially the moderators, they will be treated the same as anyone else causing problems.

I quite like what the forum has become over the years. It truly is a helpful venue for customers, and any type of official presence by Bluehost would taint that. We do want to encourage everyone to help each other. If having employees in here unofficially helping out does not work, I will stop it, but I ask that you give it more time to see if we can make it work.

-Steve

[redsox9]

Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation, Steve. It was certainly beginning to spiral off-topic (with good reason, of course).


We [BH] do NOT moderate the forums, except in extreme cases of abuse, spam, or DoS attack.

So long as we can maintain this relationship, the moderators here should be able to manage this forum without any issue. BH employees, of course, are and should be welcome to add to the conversation. They are always free to send us PMs to discuss any matters that are raised here so that we can avoid another one of these.

I think it's fair to consider this thread closed. The mods and others with "the power" are free to continue the debate but I say it's time to forgive and go share a round of beer.