3 ms·

Not to pick on op personally, but this is sort of a perfect example of the stereotypical techy type just not getting it. Yes, in the legal framework, everyone

by jrm4 3y ago

Not to pick on op personally, but this is sort of a perfect example of the stereotypical techy type just not getting it. Yes, in the legal framework, everyone would probably be well within their rights to keep using it. But this stuff is made of people. No one is harmed, mostly everyone sort of feels better in this collective recognition of "this isn't the sort of thing we're into, in this kind of way, let's do it differently." Now if we could just rename a certain vaguely ableist photo manipulation program...

bawolff 3y ago
> Not to pick on op personally, but this is sort of a perfect example of the stereotypical techy type just not getting it. No worries I appreciate your comment. After reading some of the pro-lena image replies that were kind of icky, i can see why you have this view. > But this stuff is made of people. No one is harmed, mostly everyone sort of feels better in this collective recognition of "this isn't the sort of thing we're into, in this kind of way, let's do it differently." To be clear, i understand there are other reasons to object to this image (many have been mentioned in sibling comments), and if those were the only reasons i wouldn't object. However I respectfully disagree that there is no harm here. The entire free software/free culture movement is built around the idea of someone releases something then someone else builds on it. This can only happen because you can be sure that the thing you are building on won't go away. The foundation has to be solid for such a system to work. Any normalization of the idea that people can retract work that others have built on way after the fact, is a harm. Its a threat to the whole ecosystem. I have no problem with ceasing to use the image for other reasons, but i do believe allowing any normalization of the idea that authors can retract work way after the fact, is a real and significant harm. Edit: that said, my argument is probably stronger through the lens of the categorical imperative than a harms framework.
- nielsbot 3y ago
  Is this really authors retracting work though? That seems orthogonal to this. This is saying “times have changed, let’s stop using this image.”
  - bawolff 3y ago
    The IEEE statement literally ends with: > ...with respect to the wishes of the subject of the image, Lena Forsén, IEEE will no longer accept submitted papers which include the ‘Lena image’ I imagine its a combination of factors, but it seems like a significant component of this was due to Lena's statements on the matter.
    - nielsbot 3y ago
      I thought this was a good review: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/03/playboy-image-from-1972-gets-ban-from-ieee-computer-journals/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/03/playb...

by jrm4 3y ago

bawolff 3y ago

> Not to pick on op personally, but this is sort of a perfect example of the stereotypical techy type just not getting it. No worries I appreciate your comment. After reading some of the pro-lena image replies that were kind of icky, i can see why you have this view. > But this stuff is made of people. No one is harmed, mostly everyone sort of feels better in this collective recognition of "this isn't the sort of thing we're into, in this kind of way, let's do it differently." To be clear, i understand there are other reasons to object to this image (many have been mentioned in sibling comments), and if those were the only reasons i wouldn't object. However I respectfully disagree that there is no harm here. The entire free software/free culture movement is built around the idea of someone releases something then someone else builds on it. This can only happen because you can be sure that the thing you are building on won't go away. The foundation has to be solid for such a system to work. Any normalization of the idea that people can retract work that others have built on way after the fact, is a harm. Its a threat to the whole ecosystem. I have no problem with ceasing to use the image for other reasons, but i do believe allowing any normalization of the idea that authors can retract work way after the fact, is a real and significant harm. Edit: that said, my argument is probably stronger through the lens of the categorical imperative than a harms framework.

nielsbot 3y ago
Is this really authors retracting work though? That seems orthogonal to this. This is saying “times have changed, let’s stop using this image.”
- bawolff 3y ago
  The IEEE statement literally ends with: > ...with respect to the wishes of the subject of the image, Lena Forsén, IEEE will no longer accept submitted papers which include the ‘Lena image’ I imagine its a combination of factors, but it seems like a significant component of this was due to Lena's statements on the matter.
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    I thought this was a good review: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/03/playboy-image-from-1972-gets-ban-from-ieee-computer-journals/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/03/playb...