POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: madbrain on March 20, 2013, 06:36:42 pm
-
This happened to me today again.
(https://doc-0s-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/ru9pgpdnvfdavl91d3un1b8qqv33bssg/1363816800000/14193508639955794529/*/0B1eSSO_7gwqeN2RNZ1JNMlhWaVk?e=download)
What was my sin ?
The "about" line of my profile stated, in its entirety :
"HIV+ with undetectable viral load"
This "about" line just got blanked in my profile after the Grindr "moderation".
Normally, I would think this is just some mistake. But this is the 4th time it has happened, each time with the same content. I tried it repeatedly over the past month to make sure it wasn't a one-off error (or a "clerical" one, as the California DMV once said to me). The first few times it happened, I had not noticed the pop-up because Grindr always starts with pop-up ads that I don't read. But I did notice that my profile had been deleted, so I started looking into why.
I now believe that it is the actual unwritten policy of Grindr not to allow us to openly state our HIV positive status. Ie. there is a ban on stating it.
This is a reprehensible ban that no only furthers the HIV stigma, but also makes Grindr complicit in HIV transmission.
-
That's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you write a letter to Grindr and tell them you will send your letter and their response to every publication you can think of.
-
That's a sad state of affairs. Why don't you write a letter to Grindr and tell them you will send your letter and their response to every publication you can think of.
Is this sarcasm? There should be a sarcasm emoticon.
-
mecch,
I would have written to Grindr but the app itself doesn't even let me do that.
I thought this forum was the most relevant place for me to post this, rather than "every publication I could think of". There are probably a few HIV/AIDS organizations that care, though.
buginme2,
I wish it was a laughing matter.
Have you seen the following story ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/gay-men-grindr-barebacking-frequency-poll-_n_2527856.html
IMO, the fact that one cannot disclose HIV positive status in a grindr profile probably plays a part.
I am not sure what Grindr's motivations are in that censorship. They don't want to admit that they have HIV+ users to their advertisers ?
Whatever their reasons, I think it's reprehensible.
-
I am assuming you have tried this link?
http://grindr.com/contact
You can also Google Joel Simkhai, the founder and chief executive of Grindr, and see if you can find an email address or further contact information.
Also, is this a result of Apple's notorious censorship? Assuming you have an iOS version, of course. There are many sites dedicated to that very issue.
Have you contacted a local gay rag? If no official is willing to hear you out, then perhaps it would make a compelling article.
-
That policy would go against their "Year Of Knowing" campaign. We should try an experiment and put exactly what you wrote. For those not wanting a Grindr profile or who don't want to put their status out there, a fake account could be created. That is very odd that they wouldn't want people to be upfront with their status.
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/6d3b36b3-ef3f-415c-93be-ee82e9609908_zpsb4a7de95.jpg)
-
Has anyone else put that they are HIV positive on Grindr?
I don't have a grndr account so I can't experiment. I'm curious, is Grindr considered a sex site? What is its purpose? I know people meet up using it but maybe they don't consider themselves a hook up site so they are not allowing that info??? Just throwing out ideas
-
jkinatl,
I am assuming you have tried this link?
http://grindr.com/contact
You can also Google Joel Simkhai, the founder and chief executive of Grindr, and see if you can find an email address or further contact information.
Thanks. No, I hadn't tried anything yet. I will get in touch.
Also, is this a result of Apple's notorious censorship? Assuming you have an iOS version, of course. There are many sites dedicated to that very issue.
I don't use iOS . As you can see, the phone is a Samsung. I use Android.
-
Has anyone else put that they are HIV positive on Grindr?
I don't have a grndr account so I can't experiment. I'm curious, is Grindr considered a sex site? What is its purpose? I know people meet up using it but maybe they don't consider themselves a hook up site so they are not allowing that info??? Just throwing out ideas
Grindr is very much a sex / hookup application.
It's location based, uses your GPS to find the nearest gay guys...
-
That policy would go against their "Year Of Knowing" campaign. We should try an experiment and put exactly what you wrote. For those not wanting a Grindr profile or who don't want to put their status out there, a fake account could be created. That is very odd that they wouldn't want people to be upfront with their status.
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/6d3b36b3-ef3f-415c-93be-ee82e9609908_zpsb4a7de95.jpg)
Thanks. That seems like one of those ads I was talking about actually.
Clearly the people in charge of censoring profiles on Grindr are not the same that approve the sponsors' ads. I will have to devise a new theory about why they have censored me so many times. I just put it in my profile again, let's see what happens.
-
Has anyone else put that they are HIV positive on Grindr?
I don't have a grndr account so I can't experiment. I'm curious, is Grindr considered a sex site? What is its purpose? I know people meet up using it but maybe they don't consider themselves a hook up site so they are not allowing that info??? Just throwing out ideas
Grindr isnt officially a sex site, like say man.hunt or a4a, looking for "friends", "chat", "networking", "dates" are the options, no "hookup" option exists. Pics are heavily censored to stay pg for the most part too. Ive seen people put (-) and (+) next to their profiles plenty times, as well as up and down arrows to get around censoring. I personally like not having my status on view for everyone to see, and only disclosing when it gets necessary, but I respect anyone willing to be upfront with it and think they should have the option. Allowing it might also lead to a lot "neg4neg, clean only, dnd free, no poz, blah blah blah" which in turn allows more discrimination and hurts a lot of self-esteems. I dunno.
-
I went on Grindr with a blank profile just after I was diagnosed, my profile text said I was positive and looking for advice rom people who've been there. That wasn't censored. Maybe because I was in the UK.
-
Is this sarcasm? There should be a sarcasm emoticon.
Sarcasm? No, I think its deplorable.... Shame on grindr. I don't know any online cruise sites that would block that. Maybe its an Apple policy with Grindr. There's this dichotomy where Grindr is for degenerate fudgepackers but Apple doesn't want their product used for sex, so all sorts of rules what can be shown and said.
Facefook also occassionally comes up with shameless, deplorable censorship.
Apple and Facebook, they should fuck each other in the arse and get over themselves.... 8) yes the last sentence was sarcastic personification.
-
I am not sure what Grindr's motivations are in that censorship. They don't want to admit that they have HIV+ users to their advertisers?
Whatever their reasons, I think it's reprehensible.
I have good reason to believe you've probably hit the nail on its financial head. And yes, it IS reprehensible. It's beyond fucking reprehensible. I don't think there is a word for this type of corporate censorship. It sends me into a rage.
Don't get me started. >:(
-
Well, it happened to me again today, the same "HIV+ with undetectable viral load" about line was deleted. Not sure what's up with that.
If it's not the HIV+ part, could it be the viral load part ?
Will definitely try to get in touch with grindr to figure out what's up.
-
Ann,
I have good reason to believe you've probably hit the nail on its financial head. And yes, it IS reprehensible. It's beyond fucking reprehensible. I don't think there is a word for this type of corporate censorship. It sends me into a rage.
Don't get me started. >:(
Yes, somebody needs to call them on that.
On the other hand, they are accepting ads from Oraquick, so presumably they are using the knowledge that they have HIV+ users to their financial benefit.
Of course, once we have tested positive, we are no longer potential customers for those tests, so maybe that's why Grindr doesn't want us there anymore ?
That, or they don't want to scare off any of their "neg ub2" deluded crowd by having openly positive men on it ?
I am running out of conspiracy theories.
But unfortunately, the censorship is a fact.
-
Just speculating, but could it be that the HIV with UD VL might be taken as implying you are looking for bareback sex?
I'm reaching here, but until someone contacts GRINDR and gets the story, speculation is all we have.
-
While Grindr may be guilty of moral failings, I've yet to hear anything that they have done that is illegal. Since you don't pay to use the site, they have no contract with their users and they can make whatever rules they want. If you don't like the rules, then don't use the site.
Also, stop with the their complicit in HIV infections nonsense. Unless they are forcing negative folks to have unsafe sex with pozzies, they aren't doing anything wrong. Righteous indignation aside, it almost sounds like you are pissed off that you can't list your status and have to do the notifications personally. Again, not their problem.
Joe
-
Just speculating, but could it be that the HIV with UD VL might be taken as implying you are looking for bareback sex?
Perhaps somebody is taking that stance, but they would be wrong in my case as it isn't what I am seeking.
I'm reaching here, but until someone contacts GRINDR and gets the story, speculation is all we have.
I just went to the contact link. The option for "Profile moderation support" only provides a list of guidelines, none of which apply. There is no way to provide feedback to appeal the moderation.
So, I chose the "press inquiries" option" and asked them for an explanation for their repeated censorship. I pointed them to this thread too. And also told them that I would go to the press if I didn't receive a response. Hopefully, that will get their attention.
-
Hi Mad ... didn't you have trouble getting a poz tag for your car , if so then you have the worst luck attempting to disclose of anybody I have ever seen .
-
While Grindr may be guilty of moral failings, I've yet to hear anything that they have done that is illegal. Since you don't pay to use the site, they have no contract with their users and they can make whatever rules they want. If you don't like the rules, then don't use the site.
I didn't state that they did something illegal. I am not a lawyer. Maybe some ambulance chasers could come up with something regarding the American with disability act, or the 1st Amendment, or a combination of both.
I don't have a problem with their rules, but with the way they apply them .
You may want to read : http://grindr.com/profile-guidelines
Profile text
No sexually explicit or overly suggestive text.
No profanity or curse words, including abbreviations, masking and fill-ins.
No text that incites racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind.
No advertising of services, goods, events, websites or apps.
No mention of drugs other than caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol.
No sexually explicit references or text that promotes unsafe sex.
I don't see how listing "HIV+ status with undetectable viral load" falls under any of those forbidden categories.
In fact, if you look at the screenshot I posted on the top of this thread, they can't even list the rules I violated. It just states "." ! So, they are making up the rules as they go.
Edit:
Looks like the image link in my original post expired. And I can't edit it anymore.
Here is a new one from Photobucket.
(http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a605/rabidman76/2013-03-20_zps21e635d0.jpg)
Also, stop with the their complicit in HIV infections nonsense. Unless they are forcing negative folks to have unsafe sex with pozzies, they aren't doing anything wrong.
Just because they aren't "forcing negative folks to have unsafe sex with pozzies" doesn't mean they aren't doing anything wrong. Removing HIV+ status from profiles is still a shitty thing to do, no matter how you look at it. They are deleting information that their customers could use to make safer sex decisions.
Righteous indignation aside, it almost sounds like you are pissed off that you can't list your status and have to do the notifications personally. Again, not their problem.
Yes, actually I am, as there is never an easy way to ever make those notifications personally. I don't want to get messages from poz phobic people and try to tell them one at a time. Asking them if they read my profile is far easier.
If grindr makes it officially against the rules to disclose your HIV+ status on your profile, then I will indeed stop using grindr. But I would like them to be open about what they are doing.
-
If it's not the HIV+ part, could it be the viral load part ?
Could be. They may look at it as being poz and advertising for barebacking. And not necessarily with other poz.
Given all the stories floating around the internet these days about "treatment as prevention"... do I need to fill in the blanks? It's almost like listing "hiv negative" in your profile when you're actually poz.
Please note I said almost like not the same as.
on edit
Ooops, didn't mean to post this yet. I didn't realise there had been other replies .... It's past my bedtime.
a few minutes later...
After reading the other replies, I don't really have anything to add. Well, I did add a little bit but not much.
Mad, why don't you just list hiv alone and see what happens?
-
Change your profile to "HIV+ CONDOMS ONLY" and let us know what happens.
-
Jeff,
Hi Mad ... didn't you have trouble getting a poz tag for your car , if so then you have the worst luck attempting to disclose of anybody I have ever seen .
Yes, that was me.
I recently sold the car and those poz tags are now in a drawer. I am thinking of framing them.
My new car is a Nissan Leaf EV which is a lease. I would need to get permission from Nissan to see if they would let me put those plates on it, as they are technically the owner of the vehicle. Yet another chance to be discriminated against !
But I won't be making that request. The Leaf has a limited range. Sometimes my bf and I may need to switch cars. And he doesn't want to be driving his family in a car with that has HIV POZ plates, as he is not openly HIV+ like me.
Maybe I'm just overdisclosing. But it really shouldn't have to be this hard. The car tags may be an uncommon place to do it, but not a gay meeting app.
-
neither the ada nor the first amendment are violated.
maybe I'm not understanding the full grasp of this, wouldn't be the first time. but if grindr just considers themselves to be a social site and not a "hook up" site then what's the harm? I assume they also don't allow you to state other sexual dynamics such as top, bottom, etc??
bottom line it's a private site. are you really that bothered by this?
-
I assume they also don't allow you to state other sexual dynamics such as top, bottom, etc??
Hmm... maybe that's the difference. I don't see hiv so much as a sexual dynamic as a health dynamic.
If Grindr wants to pretend they're a social site, why would they forbid users from listing health issues in their profile? Wouldn't a social site be happy to bring people with health issues in common - diabetics, IBS sufferers, hiv you name it - together for mutual support?
Hey, they can't really have it both ways can they? I mean, I suppose they can do what the hell they want to do, but ... sheesh.
We should be encouraging hiv positive people to come out of the closet, not shoving them back inside and slamming the damn door.
-
neither the ada nor the first amendment are violated.
maybe I'm not understanding the full grasp of this, wouldn't be the first time. but if grindr just considers themselves to be a social site and not a "hook up" site then what's the harm? I assume they also don't allow you to state other sexual dynamics such as top, bottom, etc??
You assume wrong.
About 1/4 of the profiles have "top/bottom" somewhere either in their headline or in their text. My own headline does and that part was never censored. One that I am just looking at says "3 sum", the other "Azn top" , "TopGun", "Top Asian", "letz play". Oh and let's not forget "generuz dude".
Whatever grindr considers themselves to be, the reality of what it actually is primarily being used for is hookups. Yes, there are some that want other things on it too, but not the majority. Similar to the so-called "romance m4m" section of craigslist.
-
Damn it, I've been saying it for years.
The more we hide, the more we have to hide.
Think about it!
-
I didn't state that they did something illegal. I am not a lawyer. Maybe some ambulance chasers could come up with something regarding the American with disability act, or the 1st Amendment, or a combination of both.
I don't have a problem with their rules, but with the way they apply them .
You may want to read : http://grindr.com/profile-guidelines
I don't see how listing "HIV+ status with undetectable viral load" falls under any of those forbidden categories.
In fact, if you look at the screenshot I posted on the top of this thread, they can't even list the rules I violated. It just states "." ! So, they are making up the rules as they go.
Edit:
Looks like the image link in my original post expired. And I can't edit it anymore.
Here is a new one from Photobucket.
(http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a605/rabidman76/2013-03-20_zps21e635d0.jpg)
Just because they aren't "forcing negative folks to have unsafe sex with pozzies" doesn't mean they aren't doing anything wrong. Removing HIV+ status from profiles is still a shitty thing to do, no matter how you look at it. They are deleting information that their customers could use to make safer sex decisions.
Yes, actually I am, as there is never an easy way to ever make those notifications personally. I don't want to get messages from poz phobic people and try to tell them one at a time. Asking them if they read my profile is far easier.
If grindr makes it officially against the rules to disclose your HIV+ status on your profile, then I will indeed stop using grindr. But I would like them to be open about what they are doing.
You might want to read their Terms of Service, which states that both Grindr and Apple have restrictions on the site and in the event of a dispute, the more restrictive Apple policies apply. It may not be Grindr at all, but Apple that is preventing your disclosure.
Joe
-
Joe,
You might want to read their Terms of Service, which states that both Grindr and Apple have restrictions on the site and in the event of a dispute, the more restrictive Apple policies apply. It may not be Grindr at all, but Apple that is preventing your disclosure.
Joe
If that's so, then I would want to find that out as well.
Seems fishy though. I can disclose it on my Facebook and that app is still allowed on iOS .
-
Change your profile to "HIV+ CONDOMS ONLY" and let us know what happens.
I still want to list the undetectable viral load part in it. But I will be glad to add the "condoms only" part.
I have a support ticket open with grindr now so I will wait to see what they say.
We are going on a tangent now, and going into the reasons why I want to list, but the reason I don't just list "HIV+" is that doing so mainly attracts positive men that want to bareback, and those aren't the ones I'm seeking.
Listing my undetectable viral load is a way to make my profile look less threatening to people who might be interested, but may be of different serostatus. It isn't an invitation to bareback with them, but rather to make it a reasonable proposition to have sex with a condom. I do think it's especially relevant that my vl is undetectable, as I am a top and I'm not looking to put people at risk. Even if condoms are used, they occasionally do break.
If I listed "HIV+ with 5 million copies viral load", should that be considered a more acceptable profile ?
What would anyone possibly think ? That I am looking for bug chasers to give them the gift ?
You just can't win when you go down that slippery slope. I believe more information is better, rather than less. If grindr wants to censor that, I want to make sure they are called up on it.
-
the reason I don't just list "HIV+" is that doing so mainly attracts positive men that want to bareback, and those aren't the ones I'm seeking.
You don't want to have sex with other HIV+ guys? I feel stigmatized now. Can I write a letter to someone?
-
You don't want to have sex with other HIV+ guys? I feel stigmatized now. Can I write a letter to someone?
I think you didn't quite read it right.
-
No sexually explicit references or text that promotes unsafe sex.
That is probably the reason. As Ann has pointed out, and as several contentious threads on this very forum have proven, treatment as prevention is replacing condom use. Ironically, the populations who stand to benefit LEAST from TAP are likely to be the ones using it the most.
The responsibility for this idiotic new manner of HIV prevention trades one arena of blind-faith trust for another. Instead of UB2, there will be UDVL as tacit permission to go condom free. And both of those "blind faith" situations make for more HIV infections, along with the rise in treatment-resistant chlamydia that's currently sweeping Europe and starting to infiltrate the US.
Fighting off Treatment-resistant Chlamydia is not a walk in the park for the HIV negative. It's quite possible for it to work wonders on a pozzie's numbers.
The more I think about this issue, the more I tend to side with GRINDR on the issue.
It's not about the HIV status. It's about the wave of TAP in hookups.
You might not be looking for condom-free sex. I submit that people posting an UD VL are more likely than not keeping the door to condom-free sex pretty open.
As most STDs which present inflammation in the urethra have been documented to cause spikes in viral load. Whether those spikes are enough to facilitate transmission in an otherwise UD person is a matter of professional opinion. But using that an UD VL claim (which even if true is only as relevant as the last blood draw) is, while LESS risky than going bareback without any information at all, is still a half-informed thing to do.
Better than a totally uninformed thing to do, granted. But IMHO only a level above Neg UB2.
I am sorry that this circumstance doesn't apply, and if the UD VL is indeed the reason your account was censored, you might have just been caught up in a larger, understandable net.
-
Hell the mo's don't care if you have da AIDS. They care if you're butt ugly. Grindr should know this.
-
jkinatl2,
I agree with you about the the risk of other STDs, but I think that discussion is irrelevant here when we are talking about allowing status disclosure.
Instead of UB2, there will be UDVL as tacit permission to go condom free.
Your logic is deeply flawed.
If I was actually seeking condom-free sex, it would be far, far simpler to simply not advertise the HIV status in my profile at all, rather than list it along with my undetectable viral load. Why go through all that trouble, seriously ?
The "neg ub2" group on grindr is much larger than all the other groups. They obviously bareback sometimes. Or haven't you seen the article from huffpost I posted earlier in the thread?
Note that it's what the censorship actually accomplished, it removed mentions of both my status and viral load in my grindr profile.
So now I'm "presumed negative" by other grindr users who never see HIV+ status in other people's profiles, and actually more likely to be solicited for unsafe sex than before, not less.
You might not be looking for condom-free sex. I submit that people posting an UD VL are more likely than not keeping the door to condom-free sex pretty open.
I don't think you can predict what preference an individual grindr user has - condoms or no condoms - unless they actually state that preference.
You certainly can't predict it from HIV status alone. We can debate all day whether they should or not, but many people in the "neg ub2" crowd are going to bareback with other "neg ub2" people. And many HIV+ people are going to bareback with other HIV+ people.
You are generalizing, somehow, that a subset of those two groups, the "HIV+ UDVL" group, is going to bareback more than the other 2 larger groups. I ask for your evidence. Even as a group, I don't think you will find any evidence that that's the case. But you certainly can't apply that logic to an individual. More health information is good, not bad.
-
I have never , not even one time been asked for anything but bareback sex on a hookup site and that's listing myself as poz . All the guys who contact me want BB sex .
Its not something I take lightly with std rates as high as they are in this area , this is the primary reason I haven't dated or attempted to hookup in quite awhile but thats not the point here I know .
-
Here is what they say about what you cannot put in your profile. So, I wonder whether the fact someone says they are poz means (to them) unsafe sex would occur, because you have a sexually transmitted virus? Or, is it the UD part that they think refers to having unsafe sex?
They sell themselves as a dating site, and a way to meet "buddies," who are gay, bisexual or curious. Even if they pretend it is a dating site, many potential dates would want to know your status. Most date looking for sex or relationships. Either for sex or dating, I think most would rather get the poz thing out of the way. If they cannot handle having a poz partner, then they can move on.
And, I wonder whether they would censor someone saying they are a cancer survivor and their cancer is in remission. Just like with HIV, many potential dates would like to have that information, instead of "wasting" their time, if they cannot deal with that.
Profile text
No sexually explicit or overly suggestive text.
No profanity or curse words, including abbreviations, masking and fill-ins.
No text that incites racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind.
No advertising of services, goods, events, websites or apps.
No mention of drugs other than caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol.
No sexually explicit references or text that promotes unsafe sex.
-
I'm not on Grindr. Have you not seen a single other profile that openly states their seropositive status? You could make a dummy ID and scour through the site and see if there are other positive profiles, and if you can't find a single one then when you email the site bosses you could mention this fact as it would buttress your position.
Best
-
I'm not on Grindr. Have you not seen a single other profile that openly states their seropositive status? You could make a dummy ID and scour through the site and see if there are other positive profiles, and if you can't find a single one then when you email the site bosses you could mention this fact as it would buttress your position.
Actually no, I can't recall personally seeing another profile that openly states HIV+ status on grindr. Others in this thread said that they have.
I don't think I should have to create a dummy account just to find out. Having my own single profile censored 5 times is quite enough.
Only the text portion of it that listed the "HIV+ with undetectable viral load" got deleted 5 times.
Everything else including my picture, headline ("white top"), my age, height, and weight, was left alone.
What more evidence do I need that they don't want me to state this ?
How many more times do they have to delete it ?
Grindr has yet to respond about their reasons for this censorship.
-
When I was on Grindr, depending on my mood, I put HIV+ in my profile.
-
in case it proves helpful... http://grindr.com/terms-of-service
-
By the way. Free Grindr is a frustrating useless service. Everyone on Grindr in my neck of the Alps uses the paid version.
I tried it out for a few months. I am TOO OLD for this service. Its not designed for old. It would be a lot of fun for teens, if it wasn't about sex, and obviously its a compelling and diverting tool for "the young set"..
-
in case it proves helpful... http://grindr.com/terms-of-service
Yes, I have seen them, but nothing that directly explains my experience.
I am still waiting for grindr to respond on my support ticket. I guess I will write to a few gay rags, maybe they can pry an answer out of them.
-
When I was on Grindr, depending on my mood, I put HIV+ in my profile.
Maybe you were lucky and didn't incur the wrath of the moderators somehow.
I want to point out that this is not a programmatic/automated ban. Grindr accepts the "HIV+ with undetectable viral load" text in my profile. It remains there from about a day to a week until it eventually gets deleted. This censorship is presumably something that requires some human interaction on the part of grindr.
-
By the way. Free Grindr is a frustrating useless service. Everyone on Grindr in my neck of the Alps uses the paid version.
I haven't used the paid version. My understanding is that the main difference is that it's ad-free, and you can see people out of your local area.
I tried it out for a few months. I am TOO OLD for this service. Its not designed for old. It would be a lot of fun for teens, if it wasn't about sex, and obviously its a compelling and diverting tool for "the young set"..
Yes, I think that is a fair criticism. In my mid 30s, I still see a lot of men in my age group, but there are definitely a lot of 20 somethings.
-
I don't mean this snarky. You seem to be rather hurt or offended by this, as if you are the victim of some grand injustice. While we may not understand or agree with their reasoning they do have a right to operate their business as they wish as long as they are within the law. Why the hurt feelings? Are there not other apps you can use that would allow you to be more open about your status?
-
I don't mean this snarky. You seem to be rather hurt or offended by this, as if you are the victim of some grand injustice. While we may not understand or agree with their reasoning they do have a right to operate their business as they wish as long as they are within the law. Why the hurt feelings? Are there not other apps you can use that would allow you to be more open about your status?
There's certainly Scruff, Manhunt, Adam4Adam, Recon, and likely a host of others I don't know about.
Purged my phones of the sex trade when I got all committed and stuff, but sometimes it's nice, in the dark of night, to discover your blue-book value. Or, you know, sometimes not so nice.
-
You seem to be rather hurt or offended by this, as if you are the victim of some grand injustice. While we may not understand or agree with their reasoning they do have a right to operate their business as they wish as long as they are within the law. Why the hurt feelings? Are there not other apps you can use that would allow you to be more open about your status?
I don't know if I would call it grand injustice, but I definitely think it's wrong. Just as you believe it's their right to operate their business as they wish, it's certainly my right not to let it go until I get an answer.
If it turns out that it's Grindr's official but unwritten policy to prohibit users from advertising HIV status and/or viral load, then I believe it merits publicity, and at the very least needs to be covered in their written policy.
It's clear that you don't personally care about the issue. Am I really the only one who cares ? I submit that others might be interested to know this, and have something to say about it, from the gay press, Act Up, ASOs, health departments, HHS, CDC, FCC, congress, just to name a few off the top of my head. I am giving Grindr time to provide an explanation first, though.
I am well aware that there are other options for me than Grindr which don't have this censorship, some of which I already use. It's worth nothing that Grindr is one of the leading such applications however, and I think that's one reason I find it so egregious.
-
I care about it. As one of the leading, if not most used, apps/sites for hook-ups and dating, I would think they would encourage people to be out, if they choose to be. And, especially with all the criminalization, it seems even more important. If you have it right there in your profile, it would make it more difficult for someone to claim you are an AIDS monster and were going around hooking up without disclosing. You would at least have some proof you were not hiding your status.
Even if they want to pretend they are a dating site and sex may happen after meeting the parents, I think people should be able to tell whether they have HIV, cancer, or some other illness. It saves the time from having to have that conversation with everyone. Of course, even with it in your profile, it is still a good idea to have that conversation in case they missed it. But, most will see it. If they can't handle that, even for dating, then they can move on.
I will be interested to know why they are deleting it. Do they not want several people with that in their profiles, because it may cause new members to think it is where all the poz people go, and it may scare them away? Do they really believe it promotes an unsafe sex message? Is it the viral load part? It kinda reminds me of clubs only allowing certain people in, who have a certain look. They want to maintain a certain image. I will be interested to know, if they even respond. I kinda doubt they will, but ya never know.
-
It's clear that you don't personally care about the issue. Am I really the only one who cares ?
I'd care if it's just the HIV issue, but it seems it's not. So if we are to focus on your right to advertise your viral load I'm still confused why one needs to do that for safe sex. Not a lack of caring just confusing to me.
Maybe I'm missing something.
-
I am well aware that there are other options for me than Grindr which don't have this censorship, some of which I already use. It's worth nothing that Grindr is one of the leading such applications however, and I think that's one reason I find it so egregious.
I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking. Of course, you'll want to hear it from the (w)horse's mouth. But if it ends up being that, will that appease you?
-
I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking.
I agree.
Mad, while you say it's not your intention to imply that you're advertising for barebacking, people can't read your mind.
I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.
I DO care - very much - about the issue of being allowed to state your positive hiv status in your profile. Not allowing it is like pushing poz people back into the closet and locking the door behind them.
I also care about being able to state that you're poz with an undetectable viral load - and I agree that it should not be permitted because it DOES send out the wrong (totally safe to bareback with) message, whether it's your intention or not.
-
It's clear that you don't personally care about the issue. Am I really the only one who cares ? I submit that others might be interested to know this, and have something to say about it, from the gay press, Act Up, ASOs, health departments, HHS, CDC, FCC, congress, just to name a few off the top of my head. I am giving Grindr time to provide an explanation first, though.
Really? you think that Congress would care about this? Other than using it as propaganda against gay rights by the far right, I don't see Congress giving a rat's ass about this "injustice". Additionally, I see Health Depts, the CDC and the HHS more concerned around the "looking to bareback" view of this.
I get why you care -- and I, also, think that the HIV+ part should be allowed. However, I have to agree with Ann and the others who think that the UD VL part DOES imply a desire to bareback in most minds. Oh -- and your earlier statement that taking your status out forces others to "assume you are negative" is really a key to this epidemic's continuation. While I think you are right -- people should "assume you are positive" and take appropriate safe sex practices to hear. I would love to see you try the HIV+ without any VL info and see what happens -- if nothing else, it will help pinpoint the real issue.
At any rate -- you have the right to feel as you do -- but given your thoughts on who would "care", I think you need to step back and try to look at this from a less emotional stance, as I think you are fooling yourself.
Mike
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you changed your profile to "HIV+ undetectible VL safe sex only". That would take the whole looking for bareback sex issue off the table.
-
you may want to have this to reference if you get Grindr's attention.
http://www.queerty.com/hiv-positive-men-jailed-for-not-revealing-status-to-16-year-old-grindr-hookup-20130228/
you want to be transparent and they won't allow it .... hmmmm
keep your paper trail ( if you get one going ) as it may prove valuable
-
Mad,
I know you said you don't want to take out the UD part. If you don't get an answer, maybe take it out just to test whether it is that, or whether they also remove HIV poz as well.
-
I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking. Of course, you'll want to hear it from the (w)horse's mouth. But if it ends up being that, will that appease you?
I would still be upset, as I feel the implication is not clear at all. I would want them to clarify their policy in this regard.
-
Mad, while you say it's not your intention to imply that you're advertising for barebacking, people can't read your mind.
Indeed, they can't read my mind, but that should go both ways.
If the UD VL is the reason they are censoring it, they are exercising their mind reading abilities by presuming I am seeking bareback sex.
I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.
Really, Ann ?
Wow. That's certainly not at all what I was trying to convey, as I have already stated.
I don't see how this implies bareback sex any more than somebody stating they are "neg".
I also care about being able to state that you're poz with an undetectable viral load - and I agree that it should not be permitted because it DOES send out the wrong (totally safe to bareback with) message, whether it's your intention or not.
I have asked the question above that nobody commented on : if I listed "HIV+ with a 5 million viral load", should that be allowed ? What would be the implication of that ?
Would that send the message that you better not have sex with me without condom ?
Or that I'm typhoid Mary trying to give the gift to bug chasers ?
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you changed your profile to "HIV+ undetectible VL safe sex only". That would take the whole looking for bareback sex issue off the table.
OK. I still have had no answer from grindr after é days.
I just changed it to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex". Let's see what happens.
-
Hello
Undetectable viral load does not equal 100% safe to bareback. Speaking from exprience having caught Hep C with an undetectable viral load and thinking stupidly the worst I risked was the clap, chlamydia, etc etc.
I guess some of you could "assume" someone saying they are "undetectable" on grindr is looking for bareback. I guess I am pretty thick because it wouldn't be my immediate assumption... Plenty of HIV+ people say they are "HIV+ and fit and sane" etc etc - that sort of identity.
But i do agree, Grindr might be censoring all this viral load info and maybe, madbrain, you could just put a + HV+ + in your profile and you wouldn't get censored.
-
OK. I still have had no answer from grindr after é days.
I just changed it to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex". Let's see what happens.
They censored that too. Same day, and I didn't even get a pop-up notification this time.
-
Hello
Undetectable viral load does not equal 100% safe to bareback. Speaking from exprience having caught Hep C with an undetectable viral load and thinking stupidly the worst I risked was the clap, chlamydia, etc etc.
Correct !
I guess some of you could "assume" someone saying they are "undetectable" on grindr is looking for bareback. I guess I am pretty thick because it wouldn't be my immediate assumption... Plenty of HIV+ people say they are "HIV+ and fit and sane" etc etc - that sort of identity.
Thanks, mecch. That's the sort of thing I'm trying to convery.
Though I'm not going to pretend I'm either fit or sane.
-
I saw this guy on the other night. He has HIV neg in his profile. Saw him again tonight. They aren't removing it, so it would seem. So, why allow HIV neg? I still wonder if you just had HIV poz and nothing else, would they remove that?
I also wonder whether Grindr has local moderators. People in each area who are actual members, or who are not seen. And, maybe you just have a moderator with poz issues? Or, everything is done from their grinding headquarters?
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/98fddf93-25e3-4e0c-bd78-fdb6a77ee9e5_zps298abf3a.jpg)
-
Maybe the universe is telling you that Grindr isn't worth your time...? ;D
You don't seem willing to drop the extra working and just go with HIV+ and Grindr clearly doesn't like all the wording.
Here is siwtzerland they are inconsistent in their censoring of words clearly referring to preferred roles and dick sizes.
-
Really, Ann ?
Wow. That's certainly not at all what I was trying to convey, as I have already stated.
I don't see how this implies bareback sex any more than somebody stating they are "neg".
Really, Mad, really!
There's another thread going here in Living about hiv transmission laws (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=47948.). Ted posted part of an article about a criminalisation case currently going on in Illinois. I read the same article, as it was linked to at the bottom of poz.com's recent newsfeed (http://www.poz.com/articles/illinois_police_officer_1_23644.shtml) item on the story.
In this article, it states:
"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."
This idea of "Treatment as Prevention" has been getting a lot of air-time lately, particularly on sites that cater to gay men.
And the thing is, these news blurbs often usually omit the details such as having a concurrent STI like chlamydia or gonorrhea totally changes that message, and we also know that having an undetectable blood viral load does not always equal an undetectable semen viral load.
But people read the part about "people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission" and to hell with caveats and details.
So YES, I do think and would think, if I read such a profile, that a positive man advertising his UD VL on a "dating" site was saying - "hey, it's SAFE to bareback with me!"
Much more so than a man stating that he's hiv negative in his profile. With a negative declaration, there's still that element of doubt. "Hmmm... he may be poz and just not know it, or he may be lying"
But poz and UD? Again, with all the "Treatment as Prevention" stories flying about on the internet, and the lack of details and/or caveats that go along with the majority of these stories, it sounds like an advertisement that is essentially saying "I'm poz, but I'm safe to bareback with".
Mad, if you cannot see that, then you're either being obtuse, stubborn, or hell, maybe you just don't get it.
-
Couldn't it be subsets of different people that sometimes overlap?
Of course there are HIV+ guys on the crusing for sex scene, who say undetectable and want that too? But really the "undetectable" as an "advantage" in getting the sex, for this group poz on poz, isn't all that imporant cause a poz guy on HAART can bareback with another poz guy with a detectable viral load, not on hart - what would be the difference?
People are making up all SORTS of self-defined screwy rules with these factoids about who they will and will not, can and cannot fuck. One stereotype does not fit all.
THere are HIV+ guys who still hope to widen the available prospects to include HIV- guys who are willing to screw with HIV+ guys. THere are HIV- guys who fully intend to have anal sex with condoms, with these said HIV+ guys ("on successful treatment" or "undetectable") and the HIV- guy knowing that factoid is put at ease to go through with the sex.
So I don't think its OBVIOUSLY an invitation on Madbrain's part to bareback sex with HIV- guys "because its ok because I'm undetectable".
And poz-poz don't even have to bother with this info exchange about viral loads, many times.
I think its just Too Much Information and its Ambiguous Information. For a site like Grindr. Which is supposed to be all quick and "basic", minimum back story please.
There are other sites where you can go to town about all your OCD data about your HIV infection, etc. etc.
smboy and barebackRT come to mind.
-
So I don't think its OBVIOUSLY an invitation on Madbrain's part to bareback sex with HIV- guys "because its ok because I'm undetectable".
I am NOT saying that it's an invitation on Mad's part to bareback sex with negative guys. I'll accept his denial of this intention at face-value.
However, what I am saying is that many guys who either think they're negative or actually are negative will see it that way - in large part because of so many news stories currently in the media (particularly the gay media) who are saying things like what I illustrated above:
"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."
Those of us who are poz (hopefully) know better, because we read more detailed articles on this subject, articles that point out that in order for Treatment as Prevention to work, there are various caveats involved.
But people who don't live daily with hiv won't necessarily be picking up on this information because the news articles OMIT THIS INFORMATION.
Sheesh. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I get enough of that in Am I Infected so maybe it's time I bowed out of this thread and save myself a(nother) headache.
-
However, what I am saying is that many guys who either think they're negative or actually are negative will see it that way - in large part because of so many news stories currently in the media (particularly the gay media) who are saying things like what I illustrated above:
"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."
Those of us who are poz (hopefully) know better, because we read more detailed articles on this subject, articles that point out that in order for Treatment as Prevention to work, there are various caveats involved.
But people who don't live daily with hiv won't necessarily be picking up on this information because the news articles OMIT THIS INFORMATION.
Sheesh. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I get enough of that in Am I Infected so maybe it's time I bowed out of this thread and save myself a(nother) headache.
Ann is spot on here -
When my partner and I had gotten together, he had many years of UD and CD4 that was above 1,000... We routinely practiced BB and I was one of those people (as was he) who thought that with his viral load being UD, him being on treatment, and his high CD4s that there was no possible way I would get infected....
Regular testing seemed to reinforce this false notion..
Until I tested positive.... and at the same time I tested positive, we found out that he had syphilis and I also tested positive for the dayuuummmm syphilis.....
So, I am living proof that treatment as prevention is a fallacy when other factors (such as someone being coinfected with syphilis) come into play.... So, while the popular thought or theory may be that being UD and on treatment means "no risk," it only takes one transmission to disprove that theory. Theory doesn't mean a thing when reality hits you in the face.
Theoretically, the odds of a meteor striking a populated area are astronomically small - tell that to the 1,000 or so Russians whose windows were broken out and who sustained injuries from a meteor strike or to a whole species (dinosaurs) who were wiped out....
It would be a dayuummm shame if a whole species were wiped out based on a notion of treatment as prevention, when there was a much more sure fire way of protection.... condoms.
Just my two cents....
As for the Grindr thing - I think there are much more important issues that energy could be spent on - perhaps, writing letters to one's representatives about potential cuts to HIV services based on budget sequestration..... Just a thought.
-
Sure I think we all agree that if Grindr is censor "HIV+" its pretty crummy. but if they are censoring "HIV+ and yadda yadda yadda" it may be something else thats up.
-
I have asked the question above that nobody commented on : if I listed "HIV+ with a 5 million viral load", should that be allowed ? What would be the implication of that ?
Would that send the message that you better not have sex with me without condom ?
Or that I'm typhoid Mary trying to give the gift to bug chasers ?
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.
-
I'm thinking that if its simply the viral load undetectable thing that Grindr is leery of and not HIV POZ , then its a good thing and pretty forward thinking on their part .
-
but if they are censoring "HIV+ and yadda yadda yadda" it may be something else thats up.
Mecch could be right, it may not have anything to do with HIV, have you thought about that?
Jan
-
I also wonder whether Grindr has local moderators. People in each area who are actual members, or who are not seen. And, maybe you just have a moderator with poz issues? Or, everything is done from their grinding headquarters?
Thanks, tednlou2. Good questions. I have no idea.
So far, all Grindr has done in the ticket is acknowledged that my about line was censored, and they asked me what the previous text was.
Given this, I'm not optimistic that they will be able to trace it back to which moderator or moderators did it, and why.
I provided the censored text to Grindr in the original ticket, and provided it again, and have not heard back it.
-
Maybe the universe is telling you that Grindr isn't worth your time...? ;D
I'm pretty sure being on Grindr isn't worth my time long term, but on the other hand, I think the issue of finding out the cause of the censorship is worth pursuing.
You don't seem willing to drop the extra working and just go with HIV+ and Grindr clearly doesn't like all the wording.
Your wish has been granted, I have just dropped it down to "HIV+". Let's see how long that lasts.
-
Ann,
I'm very well aware of the science and the reduced risks of HIV transmission by having an undetectable viral load, the possible difference in semen load, the increased risk if STIs are present, etc.
The problem I have is the implication you make that I automatically am seeking bareback sex because I am advertising my undetectable viral load, when others who don't list their HIV or viral load status are given the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, that I never stated I was seeking bareback sex anywhere. I feel that I should be given the same benefit of the doubt, not more, but not less. It's the presumption of bareback sex that I disagree with.
In any case, I changed my "about" text on grindr to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex" yesterday. It was promptly deleted as well. So, I don't think that this presumption of bareback sex is the reason I'm being censored. I made it clear I was looking for safe sex, and it was still removed.
Grindr works in mysterious ways, and apparently not in the ways the mind readers on this forum think.
-
Jan,
Mecch could be right, it may not have anything to do with HIV, have you thought about that?
No, I had not. Given that they left the rest of the profile intact and only deleted the "about" text, the entirety of which was "HIV+ with undetectable viral load" - which was deleted 5 times, and yesterday changed to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex", which was deleted too.
As I already mentioned, they left the picture, the headline, age, height, weight, ethnicity, relationship status, etc.
If it was something other than this that they objected to, I assume that they would have deleted that something else, or my entire Grindr profile, even, which would have left much more doubt in my mind about was was being censored. But in this case, it seems pretty clear to me.
-
THere are HIV+ guys who still hope to widen the available prospects to include HIV- guys who are willing to screw with HIV+ guys.
Yes, this definitely applies to me. I'm seeking these guys, or HIV+ guys who are not out about their status, but in both case, I'm seeking safe sex.
THere are HIV- guys who fully intend to have anal sex with condoms, with these said HIV+ guys ("on successful treatment" or "undetectable") and the HIV- guy knowing that factoid is put at ease to go through with the sex.
I will say nearly all of the (self-identified) HIV- guys I have talked to won't have sex with someone HIV+ like me even with condoms, ie. they don't trust condoms to fully protect them in this situation. In a few cases, after pointing out my undetectable viral load and explaining what it means, some have changed their mind. And let me be clear : they change their mind about whether to meet me or not, not about whether to use condoms or not.
Most of them won't change their mind at all, of course. They will trust condoms to protect them with another self-identified HIV- guy, who might be lying to them, or just not know their real status, and carry a viral load. There is a huge contradiction. It's a tough nut I have never been able to crack. Someone else will surely figure it out some day. We will probably have a cure for HIV by then, I think.
I think its just Too Much Information and its Ambiguous Information. For a site like Grindr. Which is supposed to be all quick and "basic", minimum back story please.
There are other sites where you can go to town about all your OCD data about your HIV infection, etc. etc.
smboy and barebackRT come to mind.
Thanks. I had never heard of those sites, but as I have said, I'm not seeking bareback sex, and I mean that, so I'm not going to head to that last one. The former one seems to be centered around Europe, so that's not going to help much either.
-
I will say nearly all of the (self-identified) HIV- guys I have talked to won't have sex with someone HIV+ like me even with condoms, ie. they don't trust condoms to fully protect them in this situation. In a few cases, after pointing out my undetectable viral load and explaining what it means, some have changed their mind. And let me be clear : they change their mind about whether to meet me or not, not about whether to use condoms or not.
Most of them won't change their mind at all, of course. They will trust condoms to protect them with another self-identified HIV- guy, who might be lying to them, or just not know their real status, and carry a viral load. There is a huge contradiction. It's a tough nut I have never been able to crack. Someone else will surely figure it out some day. We will probably have a cure for HIV by then, I think.
Thats all very accurate and common. My experience too. Thus mine was the voice that tried to explain to others that your viral load info was not necessarily an invitation to come to the bareback orgry.
In the last two years there has appeared an odd little fetish group, however. THese are young, hot "lapins" or "lopes" who claim to be HIV negative and want to have multiple partners who are HIV+ and undetectable. I know about a dozen who go on and on with this scenario on a local chat. So its easy to get a double shot of craziness - the old fashioned HIV "good little soldiers" who wouldn't touch an HIV+ person with a 6 foot caddleprod, (and, by the way, are convinced HIV is transmitted by sucking peepee) and these odd "non bug chassers" chassing undetectable guys. Weird. And nobody wants to hear anything about untreatable clap or Hep C. And any decent looking guy with a huge schlong has a waiting list of guys willing to break their own unbreakable rules to get a crack at it.
Dating sites are so filled with weirdness its best you just don't fret too much about the siteowners, or all the nutcases, and just be thankful if you pull out a normal guy or two who turns into a decent date for whatever you are looking for.
-
Ann,
The problem I have is the implication you make that I automatically am seeking bareback sex because I am advertising my undetectable viral load,
OK -- I now think that you have become completely irrational in this thread -- you are letting your indignation get the better of you.
Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there. Now -- go back and reread this paragraph and perhaps you'll retain that info.
Mike
-
Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there.
Thanks, Mike. I was starting to think I'd been posting in an alternate universe or something.
I wrote this last night, but was too tired at the time to post it. I wanted to proof-read it with fresh eyes.
I'm thinking that if its simply the viral load undetectable thing that Grindr is leery of and not HIV POZ , then its a good thing and pretty forward thinking on their part .
I agree, provided it's only the UD part.
Not allowing the poz part would be, like I said before, shoving us back into the closet.
Mad, (again, provided it's only the UD part) is what's really getting to you the simple fact that someone said "NO" to you?
Can you not look at the larger picture as to how others, particularly young gay men (new hiv transmissions are extremely high in young people (16-24), btw), might perceive the UD tag?
Innocent intentions on your part aside, you are not new to the scene. You are not young and naive.
You're not some 16-24 year old who knows very little about hiv because gay - and straight - teenagers are not taught how to protect themselves from hiv and other STIs in sex ed class.
You're not some 16-24 year old whose take-away message from the media - mainstream and gay alike - is that "aids is over/no longer a death-sentence", it's "manageable", and the recent kicker:
"Peller said that has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."
Intentionally or not, your UD profile add-on is sending out the wrong message to young, vulnerable, gay men. And that rankles.
-
I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?
When I moderated our newspaper forums, I was often accused of censorsing their right to free speech which is supposedly guaranteed. My standard reply was that we don't have the ability to stop anyone's free speech and they're more than welcome to create their own method of expression.
Censorship in relationship to our constitutional rights guarantee that we have the ability to freely speak up against our government without fear of recourse.
Wolfie
-
I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?
When I moderated our newspaper forums, I was often accused of censorsing their right to free speech which is supposedly guaranteed. My standard reply was that we don't have the ability to stop anyone's free speech and they're more than welcome to create their own method of expression.
Censorship in relationship to our constitutional rights guarantee that we have the ability to freely speak up against our government without fear of recourse.
Wolfie
I agree 100%. I don't get the injustice.
People confuse the right of free speech and censorship quite often it seems.
If I own a newspaper, magazine, or website I am allowed to control what is said or not said (and what you post or not post) I am sure the moderators of AIDSMeds would agree. That is my right, if you don't like what I have to say then create your own newspaper, magazine, or website. Now if the government tells me what I can or cannot say in my own newspaper, magazine or website then THAT is a violation of my right to free speech and therefore censorship.
I get not wanting to be put in the closet over your hiv status but its hard to understand the so called injustice and emotion of this thread.
-
I agree 100%. I don't get the injustice.
People confuse the right of free speech and censorship quite often it seems.
If I own a newspaper, magazine, or website I am allowed to control what is said or not said (and what you post or not post) I am sure the moderators of AIDSMeds would agree. That is my right, if you don't like what I have to say then create your own newspaper, magazine, or website. Now if the government tells me what I can or cannot say in my own newspaper, magazine or website then THAT is a violation of my right to free speech and therefore censorship.
I get not wanting to be put in the closet over your hiv status but its hard to understand the so called injustice and emotion of this thread.
That's because there is no injustice involved here, only self-inflicted indignation. With all the comments, the salient facts have remained the same. There is no quest here to seek something noble or enlightening. Instead, the OP is determined to have his own way and he is angry that others will not bow to his demands. No, I don't see any injustice or denying of civil rights at all, just a badly played tantrum thread.
Joe
-
Really? you think that Congress would care about this? Other than using it as propaganda against gay rights by the far right, I don't see Congress giving a rat's ass about this "injustice".
Maybe Congress would be the wrong folks indeed, however, state legislators who have put requirements on us to disclose our HIV+ status might be interested in Grindr's actions interfering with such disclosure.
Thats all very accurate and common. My experience too. Thus mine was the voice that tried to explain to others that your viral load info was not necessarily an invitation to come to the bareback orgry.
Thanks, I'm glad there is at least one other person who isn't dense and making assumptions in this thread.
In the last two years there has appeared an odd little fetish group, however. THese are young, hot "lapins" or "lopes" who claim to be HIV negative and want to have multiple partners who are HIV+ and undetectable. I know about a dozen who go on and on with this scenario on a local chat.
I dare say that I have not encountered any member of that group this side of the Atlantic, but I will be prepared if it ever happens.
Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there. Now -- go back and reread this paragraph and perhaps you'll retain that info.
Mike, Ann was not writing about what assumption "others" would make when she wrote this. This is what first comes to her mind .
I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.
-
Mike, Ann was not writing about what assumption "others" would make when she wrote this. This is what first comes to her mind .
You really are too much, aren't you? You can not see clearly in regards to this topic. If you misinterpreted Ann's initial comment, fine, it could have been stated differently -- but she has explained herself since and CLEARLY stated that she was not saying that you were looking for BB sex.
Honestly, you are completely blinded by foolish indignation right now. You are so in need of being seen as a "victim" right now, that you either can't or won't read proper English. So have at it -- be a victim, but you really should just step back and take a breath here.
Mike
-
Grindr hasn't stopped you from saying you are HIV positive right ?
Why is it so important to you for people on a sex hookup site to know you are undetectable ? Im needing a reminder on this because the thread is running a bit long now .
-
Ann,
Thanks, Mike. I was starting to think I'd been posting in an alternate universe or something.
You may want to review everything you wrote in this thread, then.
Not allowing the poz part would be, like I said before, shoving us back into the closet.
Glad we at least agree on this one thing.
As I have mentioned, I have yet to see a single profile of stating HIV+ on grindr. I don't know if it's due to Grindr censorship or the fact that so few people ever list it, or some combination of both. My own about line stating "HIV+" has been up for a little less than 24 hours and is still there at the moment. I am still not confident that it will stay.
Mad, (again, provided it's only the UD part) is what's really getting to you the simple fact that someone said "NO" to you?
What do you mean by that ? Grindr saying "NO" to my profile ?
Or others rejecting me because I'm HIV+ ?
Can you not look at the larger picture as to how others, particularly young gay men (new hiv transmissions are extremely high in young people (16-24), btw), might perceive the UD tag?
Innocent intentions on your part aside, you are not new to the scene. You are not young and naive.
You're not some 16-24 year old who knows very little about hiv because gay - and straight - teenagers are not taught how to protect themselves from hiv and other STIs in sex ed class.
You're not some 16-24 year old whose take-away message from the media - mainstream and gay alike - is that "aids is over/no longer a death-sentence", it's "manageable", and the recent kicker:
"Peller said that has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."
Intentionally or not, your UD profile add-on is sending out the wrong message to young, vulnerable, gay men. And that rankles.
I want to include the UD VL information because it does mean a lower HIV transmission risk factor, and, when this lower risk factor is combined with condom use, makes it extremely unlikely that any HIV transmission is going to occur. I do think it is better to include this information than just stating "HIV+" without any qualification about whether I'm on treatment or not, and whether it is successful or not .
I don't see how having a risk reduction factor censored is doing a service to anybody.
I am well aware it is risk reduction and not elimination, and only for HIV, not for STIs. To me, censoring information about one risk reduction factor makes as much sense as censoring other risk prevention factors.
As this thread clearly shows, I am not able to read the minds of how others will interpret or misinterpret the information about undetectable viral load and what it means or does not mean. I did not write the articles you refer to that mention nothing about STIs. When it comes to explaining the UD VL, I usually try to provide a link to http://tinyurl.com/hivtransmit . This headline clearly talks about STI. Grindr however censors URLs. They are not only disallowed in profiles, as they are assumed to be spam, but also I believe in conversations. Ultimately, the "about line" of a profile is not large enough of a space to remedy all the failures of sex education. I don't think it's fair to hold me personally responsible for them by censoring my profile. I actually do my best to explain what it means, that condoms should still be used, that blood and semen VLs can differ, than STIs can raise risk, and so on. I can only explain if somebody if there is somebody willing to listen, however. For most, seeing "HIV+" by itself means nobody will ever inquire at all.
-
I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?
I would never have posted this thread if the terms of conditions clearly covered what I did wrong.
They don't, and the explanation from grindr is a little short.
(http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a605/rabidman76/2013-03-20_zps21e635d0.jpg)
If you think that isn't worth discussing, you are certainly free not to participate in the thread.
-
Has Grindr hasn't stopped you from saying you are HIV positive right ?
I'm having trouble parsing this.
Just to recap, since your back button appears to be broken, so far Grindr have censored the following :
"HIV+ with undetectable viral load" 5 times over one month
"HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex" one time in one day
The profile now just says "HIV+" but it's been less than 24 hours, so I would say it's too early to say whether they fully approve of it.
Why is it so important to you for people on a sex hookup site to know you are undetectable ? Im needing a reminder on this because the thread is running a bit long now .
You may want to get that back button fixed. I have provided the answer at least 3 times, including now in another post to Ann, and rest assured, I am not going to do it again, I believe it was clear enough the first few times.
-
In your altruism to protect others, do you mention your multiple STD's you've posted about?
-
Mad ... I think your simply failing to see that it appears to most people reading your thread that this isn't a case of trampled free speech or grindr blocking an attempt at risk reduction ... its a case of you not being allowed to market yourself on a hook up site the way you want to .
I don't know you so Im certainly not accusing you of having these character traits but your whole thread reeks of narcissism and entitlement . There are many many important issues we face as HIV positive individual's that are worthy of taking a stand on but this isn't one of those issues , its just not .
There is nothing wrong with my back button and the questions I asked was a nice way to remind you that you should be embarrassed for this train wreck of a thread .
The fact that this thread is in living with hiv is rather nauseating to me .
-
Maybe it's your attitude they don't like, I still don't understand why you are acting like a dog with a bone, every site has the rules and regulation, obviously you have, in some way, violated their, so don't you think it's time to just let it go.
If you are just looking to hook up why not try somewhere else, the guys have already told you there are other sites for you to check out.
Jan
-
Look, blow smoke somewhere else. We've all checked out the sites from Craigslist to you-name-it. The majority of the time someone posts that they are HIV+ and undetectable they usually follow that up with, looking to bareback. We're not naive.
-
As Grindr is on iOS and android, they have two viable options:
1) they run two versions of the site with different rules, giving iOS people a narrower pool of hits that fit the more restrictive Apple TOS.
2) Run a web based app like M.manhunt, where one saves a page to his phone's screen in lieu of downloading an app, thus going around the restrictive rules.
They seem to have gone with option one - which makes most sense from a development and maintenance POV.
-
You may want to get that back button fixed. I have provided the answer at least 3 times, including now in another post to Ann, and rest assured, I am not going to do it again, I believe it was clear enough the first few times.
Now I am convinced that this is simply you needing to feel like a victim. You snark at Jeff for asking you something you've stated before, yet, you can't get Ann's point about how others might read a profile that states HIV+, UD VL as a request for BB sex (but she, repeatedly, says that she takes you at your word that this wasn't your intent).
You are digging your heels in, not only on Grindr (which is fine if you want to do so), but on here too. You aren't open to anything but your own position -- and won't even properly read and comprehend anything that flies in the face of your view. You needn't agree, but have the fucking balls to acknowledge others. Personally, I find your crusade tiresome and wholly, yes, WHOLLY, self-serving. Your packaging it up as something else, but it really is about you throwing a tantrum because you can't get your way. You have a right to do so -- but you shouldn't be so surprised that others aren't buying it.
Oh, I have to add -- if someone isn't going to have sex with you because you are poz, I find it quite dubious that adding UD VL is just the phrase they need to hear to change their mind. Now, maybe it would do the trick for someone to have bare sex -- but, of course, that isn't your intention -- so what's the point of the addition then.
Mike
-
I think Mad is not being treated fairly. Accusing him of throwing a tantrum, because he didn't get his way is unfair. He wants Grindr to say what the problem is. Yes, it is a free site, but many pay for it. If you violate terms of service here, we would all want to know how. They don't say. Someone deletes it, without explanation. They should put it in their posting guidelines, if they believe posting vl info is posting unsafe sex messages. They should at least tell you, when they send you a tos violation message.
And, how is posting you're neg any different from saying you're UD. Saying your neg could be seen as saying you're safe to bareback, if UD could be seen that way.
-
I bet HIV+ stays on your profile. I'll keep my fingers crossed. I agree with tednlou2. Obviously, congressmen, Geraldo Rivera, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and the Hague don't care about the Byzantine injustices of gay sex sites. But Grindr could have had the balls to give a short clear explanation.
Expecting one isn't wrong, but it may be unrealistic.
I have seen 300 billion HIV neg guys and their deluded, abrasive and "narcissistic" bios and adverts on cruising sites - they are more squirrely than Madbrain's wish to describe himself as undetectable.
But Madbrain, my experience on Grindr is that its not about conversation at all so I doubt you'd be engaged in educating conversations about what undetectable means or HIV generally, or anything like that, on Grindr. A regular online cruise site perhaps....
HIV+ and undetectable are just two facts, no matter how everyone chooses to interpret the intention of stating such info.
Facebook censored a woman who showed a photo of her tattooed radical mastectomy. Corporations can be spineless about their terms of use. Probably often just a side effect of keeping the business rolling. Also doesn't make people who point it out narcissists or exhibitionists.
-
The thread has clearly run its course, so this will be my last post in it.
Somehow, this thread degenerated from a discussion about censorship of HIV and viral load status by a third party site, to a referendum on treatment as sole prevention and the merits of bareback sex. I want to make it clear one last time that I have never advocated either, and I feel that this second discussion should have remained completely separate from the issue of censorship. I would also like to remind the owners and moderators of Aidsmeds that its charter is about providing information, and that actively advocating for censorship of factual information does not further that charter.
This will also be last post on Aidsmeds.
I am thankful for all the help I have received from some in these parts over the past 6 years, which I can never repay.
Unfortunately, the forums also breed some mindless attack dogs, and for me, dealing with the repeated personal smears far outweighs the benefits of remaining active.
For those of you who want to keep in touch, you can use old fashioned email, julien at madbrain.com will work .
-
I think Mad is not being treated fairly. Accusing him of throwing a tantrum, because he didn't get his way is unfair. He wants Grindr to say what the problem is. Yes, it is a free site, but many pay for it. If you violate terms of service here, we would all want to know how. They don't say. Someone deletes it, without explanation. They should put it in their posting guidelines, if they believe posting vl info is posting unsafe sex messages. They should at least tell you, when they send you a tos violation message.
And, how is posting you're neg any different from saying you're UD. Saying your neg could be seen as saying you're safe to bareback, if UD could be seen that way.
I'm not accusing him of throwing a tantrum because he wants Grindr to respond to why the deleted his profile. I think he SHOULD find out why and I think Grindr SHOULD respond to him. I am basing it on his reactions in this thread to others, as well as his actions on Grindr. People suggested it was the UD VL part and suggested he try without it to see what happens -- he refused for days, but reposted the UD VL five times. I am also basing it on his misreading of Ann's comments -- even if her first one could have been taken differently than she meant, she clearly clarified it and has yet to acknowledge that he was wrong in that.
Personally, I think he's spending more time and energy than is warranted with this -- but, I am not him, so he can have at it if he chooses. I just would like to see him step back and look at this a bit more objectively while discussing it here. Most of all, I'd love to see him acknowledge that Ann wasn't insinuating anything about his intentions -- that was all in his own mind. That is where my tantrum and victim comments come from.
I see Mad has just posted -- and this post just drives home my view of a tantrum.
Mike