Wednesday, January 21, 2015

I Did Not Remove That Photo

You know what photo I'm talking about... the one that was on my Flickr feed telling a story of a merchant in SL that did me wrong.

(A Tackier Snood Morn)

The representatives of said company seem to have reported me to Flickr. I received a lovely email today from the team at Flickr HQ letting me know that I had violated their community standards... in specific, I was told that I "must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Flickr members" and that they had deleted my screen shot. They told me my behavior was "inappropriate". 

(Draconian Smoke Rot)

I have, of course, disputed this with Flickr. I pointed out that this was not an interpersonal matter as they said it was... that this was a conflict between a consumer and a merchant and let them know that I had done a quick Flickr search for "BP", "boycott", "protest", "Chick-Fil-A", "Wal-mart" and "Nestle", the latter of which was repeatedly accused of killing babies, and that there were far more inflammatory, derogatory and downright libelous statements made on Flickr than my little gripe.

(American Door Knots)

I also pointed out that though this particular merchant doesn't have a brick-and-mortar shop due to being virtual, they were still a real company dealing in very real currency. I did not abuse or harass anyone. I didn't threaten anyone. I certainly didn't impersonate anyone or intimidate anybody. I simply posted an original photo I took and the context behind the photo. I informed Flickr HQ that I could find nothing in the guidelines provided to show that I had broken any rule. 

(Incarnate Dorks Moo)

It remains to be seen whether they'll take up the issue. And, really... my issue isn't so much with Flickr as it is with the Store That Must Not Be Named. 

(Sacrament Odor Oink)

It says a lot about a company who, instead of defending their practices, chooses to go the route of trying to censor their detractors. I didn't lie... I posted an update as soon as I received the product. I didn't call names. I didn't make false accusations. I posted my story of a purchase I made, the initial failure to deliver the product, my ignored request for a refund and my interactions with the merchant and my views of the customer services I received.

(Maniac Snorted Rook)

The store is clearly hiding something. They are trying very hard to keep the unknowing from knowing the shoddy way they treat their customers. The seem to have a corner on the market for what they sell and that is a damn shame.

(Croatian Dork Omens)

As a person living in a country where corporations are starting to gain more rights than individuals, I won't back down. I don't care whether it's a Forbes 500 company, or a tiny little virtual store in a virtual world. Real dollars are involved... the dollars I work hard to earn and when I spend those dollars, I expect certain things- like, you know, the product actually being delivered. 

(Marinade Crook Snot)

I'm not an unreasonable person. I understand that glitches happen. I didn't post my complaint within minutes of not receiving my item. It took around 36 hours to receive it, with a poor explanation and no apology. 

(Mandrake Coon Riots)

And at the end of the day, that's all I wanted. An apology and an explanation for how this situation would be handled in the future. It seems to be a known glitch with their vendor system and I absolutely get that. But as a known glitch, there are easy ways to avoid having that issue come up. 

(Damnations Rock Ore)

Hearing from others that have had similar, or worse, problems than I had leads me to believe that this is not an isolated incident and that the owners of this store have a track record of not delivering items and extremely poor customer service. And I believe the public has a right to know this. 

(Radioman Cone Stork)

Everything in Second Life is "buyer beware" and we take chances every time we give anyone one single linden. 

(Animator Cork Nosed)

I stand by my words that are now gone from Flickr. Perhaps I should have posted my story here rather than on Flickr in the first place. The reason I host this blog on Blogger is because of their commitment to free speech and their policy of not censoring people unless content is illegal or threatens violence. 

(Karma Cod Serotonin)

And, no, I didn't post the name of the company here. I'm not sure why I'm not, though I suppose I'm actually a little intimidated by their harassment of me on Flickr. Does that mean they won? Not by a long shot. My story was read by enough people that I know I've succeeded in warning others of this company's unsavory practices and poor customer service. 

(Amnesiac Dork On Ort)

And if you missed the Flickr post and really want to know who it is, well... how good are you at anagrams?

(Tsarina Coked Moron)

2 comments:

  1. I'm terrible at anagrams... But, it's okay :-)

    This you say, "As a person living in a country where corporations are starting to gain more rights than individuals", is something that all those individuals should think deep about.

    I know I'm going to divert from your post, I need to say this: Not just gain more rights than individuals. Having the power to decide on the rights of individuals. Not so long ago I read about a company, Hobby Lobby, that had the tribunal backing them in their decision of not including birth control in the medical insurance of their workers, because of religious reasons (the magical shield that will let you do all kinds of evil things). Since when companies have a say in what medical insurance covers? And that's just opening a can of worms.

    Back to your post... I believe in freedom of speech, even if I don't like what you have to say. I'm tired of that people over the Internet playing the censorship card when someone says something that they don't like. They first scream "bullies!" like if the building was in fire, and then harass the critic, crying "mom, mom, this bully says ugly things about me." Grow up and let others speak. Particularly, when you don't like what they have to say.

    I see no difference, in its essence, from the terrorist that kills because of a joke, and the person that goes to long ends to have their critics shutting up. Both are attacking freedom of speech. And both have to grow the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can I +1 you ladies somewhere ? =)

    ReplyDelete

Recent Posts