I would like a clearer definition of the moderating standards being used on Zedge these days. Every now and then, I get a message saying content has been removed, without giving any further information of what rule or segment of rules has been violated. I've read and re-read the terms of service when uploading, and I've always thought my uploads were well within them, at least when it comes to potentially offensive content. Some of it might have been a violation of copyright or a stretch of the term "Fair Use", but I cannot see any other rule the content supposedly violated. None of the later examples have contained any nudity or been particularly explicit in theming. It has mostly been fashion or glamour shots.
While I do support removal of content containing nudity, explicit themes or other offensive material, I fail to see the need for the puritan approach some moderators seem to have. The family filter is there for a reason, and all content I've thought might come anywhere near being even potentially offensive to especially sensitive people has been marked as such in uploads. I wonder why the family filter setting is even there in the first place if you're going to delete anything remotely more interesting than Sarah Palins press photos anyway.
I'm not saying we should allow p**n or nudity, but users who have chosen to turn off the family filter clearly indicate they are able to make up their own mind and don't need some form of moral police to keep them in line.
My suggestion would be one of the two following.
1. Since there is a family filter option and the minimum age of users is 16, why not have family filter enabled as a default, so registered members can choose to disable it if they want to? That way, the fragile sensitivities of what I assume is a minority of the users is properly taken care of, and those that want a broader selection can get that within the current written guidelines in the terms of service.
or 2. Amend the terms of service or FAQ section to reflect what apparently is a moderating standard much stricter than the current terms of service indicate.
The first one I actually owned was a Nokia 6310i. Excellent phone, but lacked MMS support etc.
Then came a Siemens C45, followed by a Sony Ericsson T610, Samsung E-730, Nokia N80 (still have nightmares about that one), SE K810, SE C510, iPhone 3gs (fun at first, but d**n iOS is limiting...), Xperia X10, HTC Desire HD (Provided by employer, using it for work-related stuff), and now a Samsung Galaxy Nexus
My bail is 655. How the heck did you get 1250? I added up everything on the list and got 1090. Might have missed a point or two since I was entering the numbers quite fast, but still. You're a depraved human being for achieving that
As a citizen of a free country, I'm amazed this is even an issue. Current law here in Norway states elective abortions are legal until 12 weeks into the pregnancy, while abortions for medical reasons can happen a bit later (don't know the exact numbere of weeks on that).
I think abortions should not only be permitted, but in some cases also covered under national healthcare. Reasons are many and diverse. First of all, the health of the mother. In some cases, a pregnancy goes bad, and completing it to term would pose a serious, possibly fatal, risk to the mother. In those cases, there's no question.
A more difficult area is when it comes to the health of the fetus. If serious, non-treatable illness or defects have been detected. This is the level where the debate is at here in Norway at the moment. On one hand, it's cruel to bring a baby into the world, when it will only have a painful existence in hospitals for a few years before passing on. On the other, where do you draw the line? Do you abort babies with downs syndrome? Will this lead to an elitistic society where only perfect fetuses are carried to term? The balance here is hard to find.
Then it's the social situation. Will the mother be able to properly care for the child? For some people, it's just not feasible to be able to support and care for a child at that point in their life. Then it comes down to two choices, abortion or adoption. With the current pressure the child services in most countries are under, and the vast number of children already up for adoption in the world (especially the third world), it seems immoral to bring yet another life into existence.
All these are major ethical worries that have to be dealt with, but ultimately it's about a womans right to decide matters of her own body. Of course, abortion should never be considered an alternative to prevention (and amazingly, even that is outlawed in some countries...) and proper family planning, but things happen that you might not be able to predict.