304
Playboy image from 1972 gets ban from IEEE computer journals
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
304 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59681 readers
3294 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don't want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don't know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? "What image processing tests"?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won't disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
Computers are dumb and need to be told how to take the data of an image (stored as a long series of 1s and 0s in memory) and draw it on the screen so you can see it. The people writing the software to do that needed an image to test with, just to make sure everything was working right.
Either because they were a bunch of lonely geeks in the 70s or they didn't have any other good photos to scan in, they used a headshot of a PlayBoy model. They couldn't have known that it would effectively become one of the first digital memes, meaning it's still semi-frequently used by graphics programmers (professionals and enthusiasts).
I can't claim to speak on the model's motives, but it's not hard to imagine that having their headshot used in perpetuity without consent would make someone uncomfortable.
Just to add a bit of clarification, the image wasn't just a headshot, yes that's the part that was originally scanned and used, but it's a cropped in section of the centerfold, a 3-page fold-out image in the magazine. If I remember the story correctly, they needed a large image to scan, and several people brought in images to scan in, and one guy brought a Playboy.
https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here you go. A full explanation of everything.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yCdwm2vo09I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It's probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it's gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
i think i've seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won't benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
If a sample image is "making some women feel unwelcome in the field" you may be too sensitive for life.
It's the sample image and dozens of other things. For example: people telling them they're too sensitive for life because they're feeling uncomfortable looking at softcore porn while doing their work or research.
The full picture is never used in academia, let me assure you of that. If it weren't for articles like these, most people would not know where it even came from or that the model was nude in the first place. Not defending the use of the picture, strange choice of a test picture for sure, if you know where it comes from but wanted to give you some context.
You wouldn't know unless someone told you though
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
This is not porn; it's an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren't in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it's not where you are looking.
Full picture (NSFW) https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg
It's art, but it's also porn. Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's from Playboy, which is a porn magazine. Look at it all you want, but it isn't appropriate for research papers. There are plenty of alternatives.
Edit: Part of the reason more women aren't in the field is because they're often seen as pieces of meat. They're objectified. They don't use any cropped male nude photos for test images, because the men weren't lusting over them. It's used because it was a field ruled by men, and women were often treated as objects.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn't fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don't even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it's rather an example of "deobjectification" because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
Pretend for a moment that you're a woman. You go to the office and the men are openly sharing around a porn magazine with no concern. Does that seem like a safe professional workplace? That's essentially what this represents. It isn't what's happening anymore, but it is the origin.
People also used to smoke in offices. Safe and professional is a relatively new thing.
Decorum changes over time, but it isn't new. There's always a set of rules people follow no matter where or when you are.
It's both. It's artsy softcore pornography.
I certainly don't think the full version would be appropriate, but I'm ambivalent about the cropped version.
I don't think people should get their knickers in a twist about sex in the first place.
Everything about Playboy is creepy