Gregory's ServerHere's the image in question, which Google thinks is sexually explicit.
It's the panel from a comic about the "discovery" of the clitoris by Anita Zaramella!
|
15 comments | Expand all CWs
 We don't know whether Google has taken to using some utterly useless automated tools to detect "sexually explicit" content, or the image was maliciously reported - these are both struggles that we've had in the past. And once again, we wearily have to sigh "oh come ON" and request a manual review. @vagina_museum that beard, and those sunglasses, together with that Italian family name, is smth utterly pornographic… If your interest is piqued and you'd like to read the rest of the comic, you can find the other three pages over in our resources section, because Google hasn't taken *those* down. https://www.vaginamuseum.co.uk/learning/resources @vagina_museum I once posted a link to a Guardian article on an American weight loss site and it was reported and deleted because there was a photo - taken from the side - of a naked woman in the article. I was very irritated by this. @vagina_museum you could also be more explicit and trustworthy than this.  Mansplaining to the vagina museum in a thread about censorship of the clitoris. Achievement get! Blocked!   @vagina_museum I wonder whether $goog is upset about the text in the left frame more than the anatomy in the right frames.  @vagina_museum Now I'm half wondering how much you need to Barbie Doll Anatomy it to have it not be flagged, because that's...not very distinctively the thing they're flagging. Like, this is probably immature of me, but I can't help thinking they'd flag a Magatama from Ace Attorney ( https://aceattorney.fandom.com/wiki/Magatama ) placed against skin tone. (Also, I thought Colombo was Columbus, and had to double take on the panel.) |
@vagina_museum Google being a prude