I think the only way this is going to be resolved is if other countries pop up their own social media sites. Although it is global Meta follows the social norms and laws of the US since it is a US company. If social media company where is too he started in a country like Germany, where they have very different attitudes when it comes to nudity - where over the counter Naturist magazines were popular into the early 2000s featuring families and children, and today casual nudity is still seen in movies and TV of people of all ages, and it's not used for shock value or pornographic, pus, the country is long stance in FKK - then as Naturist we would have a free and open way to express ourselves and promote the movement, as the social media site would be under German laws and culture norms.
Just with reference to Substack; since the recent changes where there is a lot more following and other more typical social media abilities, I've noticed that suggested users to follow are now a mix of nudist/naturist content and individuals and people who share other types of naked content that are not typically nudist, as it was formerly. It is similar with regard to posts that appear in my feed, these are often from people I have never knowingly had any contact with here and not focused on nudism.
I'm not sure where Substack seems to want to go with these changes, but it, or more specifically some algorithms, seem to be repeating that old mistake of assuming that nudism = porn, or some other things that are not what I'm here for.
It does seem more than anything else like a corporate drive to up the eyeball count, increase ad income, blah, blah same old, same old lump us all together rather than provide a useful service to a disparate range of users, just like Meta, Alphabet and all of those other mega-tech businesses have done.
I think that the point that was made about a wider base for online innovation in the social media sphere is relevant, this online clone zone only seems to ultimately serve the rich and greedy to a large extent.
Following on from the above post I've just noticed that on the Bare With Me page - https://substack.com/@barewithmepod each post has that "May contain explicit content" warning on a blacked out image, which is just an image of microphones and text mentioning that editions theme. Text is being censored here now, not just naturally naked people. Public nudity is legal here in the UK and some other countries in Europe, yet the ideals of others from elsewhere censor our world wide web experience of nudism.
This, of course, is because of society's opinion of the public display of the nude body. It is a very sick opinion! Concerning people getting pleasure from seeing pictures of nude people.......so what? No amount of the so oft-repeated line that social nudists don't look at each other's bodies is convincing to me. After all, they can be nude in their homes away from any eyes of neighbors. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that there should be ANY laws against public nudity!!! There are people who claim to be nudists who DON'T support such a view! They would rather be able to enjoy their exclusive privilege to attend a resort with others that are like-minded, instead of promoting a world where ALL can enjoy the wonderful pleasure of being nude, and seeing others nude without having to pay for the privilege. I certainly have nothing against nudist resorts, just like going to any other amusement park, but if society had a healthy attitude, I wouldn't have to go there to be nude.
I totally agree. The naturalist should be a defined group with the freedom to share lawful content. If these idiots in politics can call for hanging and other violence, we as a group should be allowed our beliefs in healthy content and freedom of speech. I’ve been a Naturalist for 75 years, from childhood to retirement. Let’s keep things natural.
Es lo que visto últimamente, Facebook quita mis reenvíos nudistas porque incumplen con sus reglas y precisamente no tienen connotación sexual ni es pornografía, simplemente porque se muestran desnudos y ni siquiera se muestran cenitales. Creo que están exagerando en esas redes sociales.
I respect Stéphane tremendously, but the problem here is far more extensive than what affects either art or naturism. Most social media are simply businesses established to make a profit, or at least cover their costs. Many countries (except for the numerous strongly authoritarian ones) don't have open and popular social media, but of course they do make laws that may or may not respect naturism, or even legitimate art - or any number of other categories that aren't "mainstream". Ultimately, what determines the sorts of speech (or visual media like art) that are allowed is what the populace is willing to tolerate. (Think Courbet's controversial painting L'Origine du monde.)
Naturists, of course, want to communicate their message in as many ways as possible (social media, news media, cinema, etc.) But inevitably they are frustrated by the limitations of the country or region they seek to communicate in. The ease with which communication is possible varies from the transparency of clean air to the murkiness of deep seas.
There are two approaches that naturists can use to get their message out. One, of course, is to operate their own social media. Until recent times that typically meant books and magazines (also vulnerable to censorship). There have been online media that naturists have used - for at least 40 years in fact. (Things like CompuServe and rec.nude.) Some such media currently are specifically for naturists to communicate among themselves - and that's very useful. Many more existing naturist organizations should be using these, but few do to any real extent because of expense and lack of technical skills. Briitish Naturism is very good at this. But hardly any others are, at least in the English-speaking world.
There's a second way, however. Commercial social media that aren't hostile to naturism now exist - Bluesky being the most recent and best example. To avoid "offending" people who are averse to nudity of any sort, Bluesky "labels" posts that contain non-sexual nudity, so people can choose to avoid it. (I think there's a separate category for porn, but don't know for sure, since it doesn't interest me.) Eventually, Bluesky will need to use advertising or "premium" features to pay the bills, but what that will be isn't clear just now. Also emerging is something similar to Bluesky - called the "Fediverse". Online socializing occurs via interconnected systems that are generally operated by private individuals - but could also be used effectively by naturist organizations. Mastodon may be the earliest and best-known example. If the "fediverse" becomes popular, individual naturists could discuss naturism among themselves, or with any of the general public who might be interested. This could be a good tool for naturist parks and resorts to publicize themselves and facilitate communication among members and visitors.
Naturists need to take their future into their own hands. Griping about the hostility of ugly things like Facebook will be of little help. Tools like emerging online social media should play a large role. The problem is presenting naturism to the general public - people who might not ever realize it might interest them. Facebook and its ilk won't work - because they refuse to. Ideally, individual naturists - given existing and forthcoming tools - should take on this responsibility - but too few are willing to be open about social nudity.
I'm a photographer that works with a lot of artistic nudity and I gotta say that the "exceptions" made by meta for this medium are not strong either, as this article claims in the last few paragraphs, sadly. Artists struggle with the same issues that naturist communities do, and these stricter guidelines that went into effect recently had the same effect for artists. I suddenly had tons of my art flagged or removed, and I had to appeal report by report, one by one, for them to be allowed again on my account.
I pay my yearly membership and can’t get in the site …..?
Hi Alberto, sorry to hear you’re having trouble. Please email me at evan@planetnude.co and let’s see if we can get to the bottom of it.
I think the only way this is going to be resolved is if other countries pop up their own social media sites. Although it is global Meta follows the social norms and laws of the US since it is a US company. If social media company where is too he started in a country like Germany, where they have very different attitudes when it comes to nudity - where over the counter Naturist magazines were popular into the early 2000s featuring families and children, and today casual nudity is still seen in movies and TV of people of all ages, and it's not used for shock value or pornographic, pus, the country is long stance in FKK - then as Naturist we would have a free and open way to express ourselves and promote the movement, as the social media site would be under German laws and culture norms.
What about the one we're on--Substack? What about Quora and Reddit?
Just with reference to Substack; since the recent changes where there is a lot more following and other more typical social media abilities, I've noticed that suggested users to follow are now a mix of nudist/naturist content and individuals and people who share other types of naked content that are not typically nudist, as it was formerly. It is similar with regard to posts that appear in my feed, these are often from people I have never knowingly had any contact with here and not focused on nudism.
I'm not sure where Substack seems to want to go with these changes, but it, or more specifically some algorithms, seem to be repeating that old mistake of assuming that nudism = porn, or some other things that are not what I'm here for.
It does seem more than anything else like a corporate drive to up the eyeball count, increase ad income, blah, blah same old, same old lump us all together rather than provide a useful service to a disparate range of users, just like Meta, Alphabet and all of those other mega-tech businesses have done.
I think that the point that was made about a wider base for online innovation in the social media sphere is relevant, this online clone zone only seems to ultimately serve the rich and greedy to a large extent.
Following on from the above post I've just noticed that on the Bare With Me page - https://substack.com/@barewithmepod each post has that "May contain explicit content" warning on a blacked out image, which is just an image of microphones and text mentioning that editions theme. Text is being censored here now, not just naturally naked people. Public nudity is legal here in the UK and some other countries in Europe, yet the ideals of others from elsewhere censor our world wide web experience of nudism.
This, of course, is because of society's opinion of the public display of the nude body. It is a very sick opinion! Concerning people getting pleasure from seeing pictures of nude people.......so what? No amount of the so oft-repeated line that social nudists don't look at each other's bodies is convincing to me. After all, they can be nude in their homes away from any eyes of neighbors. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that there should be ANY laws against public nudity!!! There are people who claim to be nudists who DON'T support such a view! They would rather be able to enjoy their exclusive privilege to attend a resort with others that are like-minded, instead of promoting a world where ALL can enjoy the wonderful pleasure of being nude, and seeing others nude without having to pay for the privilege. I certainly have nothing against nudist resorts, just like going to any other amusement park, but if society had a healthy attitude, I wouldn't have to go there to be nude.
I totally agree. The naturalist should be a defined group with the freedom to share lawful content. If these idiots in politics can call for hanging and other violence, we as a group should be allowed our beliefs in healthy content and freedom of speech. I’ve been a Naturalist for 75 years, from childhood to retirement. Let’s keep things natural.
Es lo que visto últimamente, Facebook quita mis reenvíos nudistas porque incumplen con sus reglas y precisamente no tienen connotación sexual ni es pornografía, simplemente porque se muestran desnudos y ni siquiera se muestran cenitales. Creo que están exagerando en esas redes sociales.
I respect Stéphane tremendously, but the problem here is far more extensive than what affects either art or naturism. Most social media are simply businesses established to make a profit, or at least cover their costs. Many countries (except for the numerous strongly authoritarian ones) don't have open and popular social media, but of course they do make laws that may or may not respect naturism, or even legitimate art - or any number of other categories that aren't "mainstream". Ultimately, what determines the sorts of speech (or visual media like art) that are allowed is what the populace is willing to tolerate. (Think Courbet's controversial painting L'Origine du monde.)
Naturists, of course, want to communicate their message in as many ways as possible (social media, news media, cinema, etc.) But inevitably they are frustrated by the limitations of the country or region they seek to communicate in. The ease with which communication is possible varies from the transparency of clean air to the murkiness of deep seas.
There are two approaches that naturists can use to get their message out. One, of course, is to operate their own social media. Until recent times that typically meant books and magazines (also vulnerable to censorship). There have been online media that naturists have used - for at least 40 years in fact. (Things like CompuServe and rec.nude.) Some such media currently are specifically for naturists to communicate among themselves - and that's very useful. Many more existing naturist organizations should be using these, but few do to any real extent because of expense and lack of technical skills. Briitish Naturism is very good at this. But hardly any others are, at least in the English-speaking world.
There's a second way, however. Commercial social media that aren't hostile to naturism now exist - Bluesky being the most recent and best example. To avoid "offending" people who are averse to nudity of any sort, Bluesky "labels" posts that contain non-sexual nudity, so people can choose to avoid it. (I think there's a separate category for porn, but don't know for sure, since it doesn't interest me.) Eventually, Bluesky will need to use advertising or "premium" features to pay the bills, but what that will be isn't clear just now. Also emerging is something similar to Bluesky - called the "Fediverse". Online socializing occurs via interconnected systems that are generally operated by private individuals - but could also be used effectively by naturist organizations. Mastodon may be the earliest and best-known example. If the "fediverse" becomes popular, individual naturists could discuss naturism among themselves, or with any of the general public who might be interested. This could be a good tool for naturist parks and resorts to publicize themselves and facilitate communication among members and visitors.
Naturists need to take their future into their own hands. Griping about the hostility of ugly things like Facebook will be of little help. Tools like emerging online social media should play a large role. The problem is presenting naturism to the general public - people who might not ever realize it might interest them. Facebook and its ilk won't work - because they refuse to. Ideally, individual naturists - given existing and forthcoming tools - should take on this responsibility - but too few are willing to be open about social nudity.
I'm a photographer that works with a lot of artistic nudity and I gotta say that the "exceptions" made by meta for this medium are not strong either, as this article claims in the last few paragraphs, sadly. Artists struggle with the same issues that naturist communities do, and these stricter guidelines that went into effect recently had the same effect for artists. I suddenly had tons of my art flagged or removed, and I had to appeal report by report, one by one, for them to be allowed again on my account.
Would anyone be able or willing to react to a video on here?
https://youtu.be/m3M5dIeiC-g?si=mcTBi6J3fBz0mUFU
Is there a petition we could sign and sent to meta?
I remember, a few years ago now I think, when a playlist on YouTube of naturist videos, all perfectly innocent in my view, was suddenly deleted.
To us censoring is criminal, it’s hiding the truth and honesty of others.