Talk:Photobucket

message: Under "Censorship policy" the page reads "Photobucket does not allow sexually explicit or objectionable content", but it looks like that's not entirely true. Their TOS reads "The free account does not allow any image hosting or storing/sharing of legal adult not safe for work ("nsfw") images. If you are interested in image hosting or storing/sharing legal adult nsfw images, you will need to subscribe to our Expert Level Paid Accounts." (emphasis mine). 
That's a fairly minor detail... but what's more interesting is https://red.photobucket.com/ (caution, very NSFW), which brands itself as "PhotobucketRED" and appears to be some sort of low-rent porn site. It doesn't appear to be a third-party creation, either - not only does Photobucket not appear to offer custom subdomains in any of their plans, but it maintains the same header, footer links, and login, and some search terms forward directly from the main site to the "Red" version. Compare https://photobucket.com/images/cars to https://photobucket.com/images/porn (again, nsfw. except the cars).
It doesn't look especially new - the pictures show dates of Sep/Oct 2018, there's a 2018 copyright at the bottom, and it seems to use an older version of the footer (although the only snapshot on archive.org is from this April) - but I can't find any news, discussion, or press releases about Photobucket trying to break into the lucrative dozen-secondhand-porn-jpgs-slapped-on-a-page market. 
(I wasn't planning to spend my night researching a shoddy imagehost's shoddier porn site, either - somehow this all came out of a quick search to see if there was a workaround for blurred images on a car repair forum. Oops.)
On a completely unrelated note, they seem to think they've regained customer trust: https://blog.photobucket.com/articles/how-we-lost-and-regained-customer-trust
--02:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexually Explicit or Objectionable Content? (woo!) 

message: User:No Great Shaker recently reverted me with very dubious arguments . Anyone that cares to look at our recent history at Talk:Norway Debate will immediately understand this user is scouring my edit history trying to start a beef. Let's just calm down for a week before we address this silliness, shall we? CapnZapp (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a valid WP:CIR concern about this person and, having tried to deal with the problems he is causing at Norway Debate, I decided it would be prudent to see if he is causing more problems elsewhere. Some of his recent edits are okay, so no action is necessary, but the changes he has made to the lead of this article are not, so I've reverted them for the reasons given. I am not "trying to start a beef"; I am trying to protect the site's articles from disruptive editing. And accusing another editor of silliness is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. NGS Shakin' All Over  21:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: The brand went through a major refresh in early 2023 and I've included a link to the new logo:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1E3X1AJa5LeMexUa9b1I4yr3fvkSGbXqy JBKistner (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace old logo 

message: Please have a look at recent editing history and assess whether we are succeeding in keeping our article uncensored and critical (assuming reliable sources back us up, of course).
Photobucket was heavily criticized back in 2017 (for instance The Verge reported they were accused of blackmail, their words not mine), and lost a substantial amount of their user base, something that is barely reflected upon the article in its current form, where every instance of expanding upon this has been rolled back. The article has been criticized to read as an ad all the way back in 2008. 
Even today, many years later, former users of their free service are still spammed by unending emails / veiled threats to upgrade to paid accounts or their photos will be lost. (a source).
CapnZapp (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's way too uncritical. A lot of text was deleted over the last 2 to 3 years with rather unconvincing arguments and without previous discussion.  I think the continuous email bombardments need to be addressed. Also, the first troubles came way earlier, in 2014, when people started receiving mails about allegedly having exceeded their bandwith. --Maxl (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncritical article / potential COI editing to sanitize article and deflect criticism