or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nude image search gets popular photo sharing app 500px pulled from App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nude image search gets popular photo sharing app 500px pulled from App Store - Page 2

post #41 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Id love an iPad dA app, it would totally breach the rules, sooo much awesome awesome art (nudie pics)

What's the point? Mobile app works fine for dA...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #42 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

 

Excepting the erroneous opinion of religious prudes (mostly located in the United States)

 

And Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Should give an idea of where exactly the "free" United States of America stand on the scale of sociological freedom nowadays...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #43 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewinski View Post

 apparently people like Shiny more than they like their freedoms.

Microsoft taught you that back in the 90's. Not news.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #44 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think the difference in how Apple might be held liable. In the case of an internet search engine no one seems to blame the browser or OS maker, or even that Google is copying the internet without permission, but since 500px is only had via the App Store Apple's lawyers, hypothetically, may have felt they could be held responsible for the content being funneled through that app.


Held liable by whom, for what?

 

This is just another brick in the wall of the garden.  Seriously, Apple should wake up.  I happened upon this article on Businessweek - "

Why I Might Ditch My IPhone for an Android"  in it, the author said:

 

Quote:
After being in love with my iPhone for several years now, my attentions are increasingly being pulled elsewhere—and I’m not fighting it.
...
But I was also interested in the openness of the Android ecosystem, and wondered if that would be a benefit, compared to the walled garden that Apple runs for iOS.
...
There’s no question that Apple’s garden is beautiful, as walled gardens go. It is extremely well-maintained: Nasty or disturbing apps are kept out and everything is checked to make sure it works properly, which is definitely a big benefit. In other words, the bars are hard to see behind all those beautiful flowers. But in some cases, useful things are kept out as well—content, applications, or ways of integrating with other networks and services that may not meet Apple’s standards (or that aren’t willing to pay Apple for the privilege).
...
For a while, I’ve also noticed something I’ve seen others, such as Liz Gannes mention at All Things Digital : I’ve gradually been replacing many of Apple’s services and default applications with Google ones like Maps and Mail, or those made by others. The iPhone itself—the hardware—still appeals because it is so well made and great to hold. But for services, Apple has never really been the best, and you can see that in things like iCloud.
...
For me it comes down to this: Apple has great design, but it restricts your choice in all kinds of ways. I have been seeing those restrictive bars more and more, despite all the beautiful flowers. Android offers a kind of “tyranny of choice.” But in the end, I think choice and openness are better, even if they seem less attractive at first glance. That’s why I’m thinking of making the switch permanent. Forgive me, Steve.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-16/why-i-might-ditch-my-iphone-for-an-android#p2

 

Being completely non-nonsensical with App Store policing such as evidenced in this article, Apple are only reinforcing their reputation for being restrictive and controlling.  It will probably contribute to doing their sales more harm than good.


Edited by cnocbui - 1/23/13 at 1:59am
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui 
Being completely non-nonsensical with App Store policing such as evidenced in this article, Apple are only reinforcing their reputation for being restrictive and controlling.  It will probably contribute to doing their sales more harm than good.

They could do with being more consistent with what they reject. Of course other stores have similar policies too. You won't find pornographic games in Sony's, Nintendo's or Microsoft's online gaming stores:

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/wii/porn-game-company-to-bypass-esrb-sony-ninty-ms-to-create-own-adult-game-industry.html

You also shouldn't find porn apps in the Google Play store:

http://blog.mikandi.com/developers/google-play-enforces-anti-adult-policies-drives-developers-away/

"Since the transition from Android Market to Google Play, Google has beefed up its policy around adult material, and has begun to drive developers of adult apps out of their market. Last week, the market banned the app Reddit is Fun for violating its content policy.

While we’re sad to see Google Play follow Apple’s path, we understand why a mainstream market would want to keep adult material out. You don’t want a market that appeals to kids and adults. At least Google gives adults the option to get the apps they want by downloading them from third party sources"

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/08/google-tv-fyretv-app/

"The app isn’t distributed through Google Play because Google doesn’t allow any adult content on its app store. Instead, it can be downloaded directly from FyreTV’s website, which is possible because Google TV makes it possible to install apps from third-party sources."

Apple's store being the only way to get apps feels more restricitve when they enforce their policies too harshly because it's the only option. There are benefits to having a strictly curated single source App Store and there are benefits to having a loosely curated multi-source store. I wouldn't mind it if Apple actually got rid of apps that really don't look very good like the following:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/3d-sex-positions-free-stereogram/id383100402?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/69-positions-sex-positions/id352702744?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/365-*-300+-best-sex-positions/id387395248?mt=8

To take out a photo app that doesn't even advertise itself as pornographic and leave these apps in the store seems hypocritical. The suggestion of illegal pornography likely pushed the photo app one over the edge but we'll see. They'd probably get just as much, if not more negative publicity if someone ran an article saying Apple allows an app that makes illegal pornography readily available. It's very hard to pick a winning side with things like this.
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


Held liable by whom, for what?

This is just another brick in the wall of the garden.  Seriously, Apple should wake up.  I happened upon this article on Businessweek - "

Why I Might Ditch My IPhone for an Android"  in it, the author said:




http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-16/why-i-might-ditch-my-iphone-for-an-android#p2

Being completely non-nonsensical with App Store policing such as evidenced in this article, Apple are only reinforcing their reputation for being restrictive and controlling.  It will probably contribute to doing their sales more harm than good.

Yes, you can simply rave about the wonders of freedom and how nice it is to have an app store that isn't curated, but that's a very one-sided view. While openness has some advantages, it has some disadvantages as well. App quality. Malware. Apps that simply don't work.

Apple has chosen one route, Android has chosen another. Saying "Apple must do what Android does" is nonsensical - they have different goals, different systems, and different customers. If you don't like the choice Apple has made, you can either live with it or switch to Android. Saying "Apple must become Android" is a foolish argument.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #47 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, you can simply rave about the wonders of freedom and how nice it is to have an app store that isn't curated, but that's a very one-sided view. While openness has some advantages, it has some disadvantages as well. App quality. Malware. Apps that simply don't work.

Apple has chosen one route, Android has chosen another. Saying "Apple must do what Android does" is nonsensical - they have different goals, different systems, and different customers. If you don't like the choice Apple has made, you can either live with it or switch to Android. Saying "Apple must become Android" is a foolish argument.


I didn't say anything about the Apple becoming Android.  Telling the complainers and critics of the banned app to go fly a kite because It's a photography App and Nudes as a theme in art is much older than Photography - would not have made them Android, it would have just been showing some backbone.

.

Lightening up and growing up, wouldn't make Apple Android, but it might slightly improve the walled garden reputation that is quite clearly affecting people's perceptions and buying decisions.

post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui 
Telling the complainers and critics of the banned app to go fly a kite because It's a photography App and Nudes as a theme in art is much older than Photography - would not have made them Android, it would have just been showing some backbone.

Lightening up and growing up, wouldn't make Apple Android, but it might slightly improve the walled garden reputation that is quite clearly affecting people's perceptions and buying decisions.

Let's assume for a second that there were indecent illegal images in there, would you say it should get pulled or not and what would you say in the same situation if Google decided not to pull the app?
post #49 of 72
"The app was removed from the App Store for featuring pornographic images and material, a clear violation of our guidelines," an Apple spokesman said in a statement to The Next Web. "We also received customer complaints about possible child pornography. We?ve asked the developer to put safeguards in place to prevent pornographic images and material in their app."


but...but.. apple has to ban their device's because they could be used for possible child pornography... /Facetious... seriously!... are they?... think about it possible child pornography on this web site/app?... how quickly do you think the web site owners/photo poster would be arrested?...

frankly, due to the "under ground nature" of possible child pornography, apple should include a flag that notifies the photo taker of the possible child pornography when using the apple photo devices... /Facetious... ban facebook,twitter because of possible child pornography in the form of sextexts photos send on twitter, and facebook... /Facetious
post #50 of 72
to Answer my rhetorical question... the web site 500pixs added the nude photo search so that THEY (the web site owners) could easily root out any possible child pornography photos posted to the web site... (so that they could hake it an easier job to find such possible child pornography...

but In reality, it is a professional web site so there is not much threat of possible child pornography... maybe on other sites... oh no apple better get out the ban hammer for those sites do to possible child pornography...
post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Let's assume for a second that there were indecent illegal images in there, would you say it should get pulled or not and what would you say in the same situation if Google decided not to pull the app?

 

I wouldn't think it should get pulled at all,  no more than I would think a Web browser should be.  From hearing users characterisations of the site, I very much doubt the images are either illegal or porn.  If you start bandying around silly words like 'indecent', much of art would be targetable.

 

Should Apple remove all e-book reading apps from the App Store as well, because they could be used with content such as Fifty Shades of Grey, The Story of O, etc, etc?

 

Obviously I think the same regarding Google.  It should be up to the owners of the devices what they do with them, not the manufacturer.

 

The other crazy thing is the purported complaints don't actually appear to be about actual child pornography, but the 'possibility' such images might get posted to the 500px site, which would be in contravention of the sites policies and guidelines anyway and would be removed when noticed.


Edited by cnocbui - 1/23/13 at 8:24am
post #52 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

If the app has the over 17 rating, who cares if it's porn or not? We're not in Saudi Arabia where porn is a crime, it's just a matter of bad taste.
Are we starting to outlaw apps that display tacky lawn ornaments next?
Grown up people are responsible for their own actions, if Apple can't enforce app ratings it's their problem, they shouldn't punish app users and providers for it, particularly as long as mobile Safari craps out at 8 open pages...

 

I have a huge issue with the way Apple does the 17+ rating, it is too blunt of a rating to really be helpful.  It would be really nice if Apple had a separate warning & rating for content that could allow internet access from the 17+ rating so you could better rate these apps to the type of content they might give access too.  I say this because I've run across several apps that have the 17+ rating purely because they can access the internet but there is nothing about the app that allows access to inappropriate material.  Take for example some of the kidsafe web browsers that are rated 17+ purely because they access the internet, thus defeating the purpose of restricting content based on age rating.  It's about time they re-visited this & fixed it, it's been broken for far too long.

post #53 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abracadabra View Post

According to Kurt Vonnegut the difference between nude art and pornography is presence of... pubic hair.

And so it goes ....
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #54 of 72
Pictures please...
post #55 of 72

the world needs fewer prudes, not more.

>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abracadabra View Post

According to Kurt Vonnegut the difference between nude art and pornography is presence of... pubic hair.

 

 

So if I'm watching a movie where a girl is servicing a horse while a line of midgets take turns one after the other of plowing her from behind....as long as she has pubes it's 'art'?

 

Well consider me a purveyor of fine art then! lol.gif
 

post #57 of 72

Perhaps Apple are trying to stifle competition against the upcoming iPr0n?  

post #58 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui 
I wouldn't think it should get pulled at all,  no more than I would think a Web browser should be.

It's different from a web browser because the company owns the servers where all the images are hosted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui 
From hearing users characterisations of the site, I very much doubt the images are either illegal or porn.  If you start bandying around silly words like 'indecent', much of art would be targetable.

If the service only removes actual indecent images after they are flagged by users, it still allows the possibility of people viewing offensive or illegal images. I had a browse through the 500px site and found this:

http://500px.com/Feast?page=1

The girls in some images look a little young and there's images of girls in leather and on all fours on a bed (I'll wait until you get through them, it took me a while because you have to do the whole click, click, right-click > inspect element > resources > drag image to desktop > encrypt). You can see why at least a handful of those pictures would be objectionable.

The store belongs to Apple, they can put whatever they want in it. If you had a shop, I wouldn't expect to wander in naked without being told to get out. It's perfectly natural to be naked but I can accept that people might not want my crusty scrotum in plain sight. If they allow naked images, then you get images that push things a bit further with suggestive poses like someone naked sucking a lolly or covered in cream. It can be entirely tasteful but it's just easier for Apple to control with a non-nude policy, if that's what they are enforcing here.

It seems like they just found some images to be a bit too suggestive. There was one of a nude girl covered in melted candle wax. I'm personally a bit desensitised to this stuff and I have a pretty open view of what constitutes art but I'd say some of that stuff is pushing it to the limit of tasteful nudity. I think I'll need to investigate further though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui 
Should Apple remove all e-book reading apps from the App Store as well, because they could be used with content such as Fifty Shades of Grey, The Story of O, etc, etc?

I don't know if they should but they seem to have done this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9821311/Apple-bans-photography-app-500px-over-porn-images.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7911821/Apple-accused-of-censorship-after-porn-disappears-from-iPad-book-chart.html

"Apple has a strict ban on pornographic content in the App Store. It has even purged erotic novels from the iPad book chart.

Blonde and Wet, the Complete Story was ranked first on the iPad in a top 10 that included three other erotic novellas yesterday morning.
But all four titles disappeared simultaneously and had been replaced with less risqué books, such as Peter Mandelson’s autobiography, by the afternoon."

Like I say, it's up to them. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If you just let anything in, you'll end up with stories about all sorts of perverse things and quality control comes into as well as censorship.
post #59 of 72

If I want porn, I'm just going to use Safari, not some sharing app that might serve me something that wasn't porn.

post #60 of 72

Well...this was dumb but then again several app store decisions have been dumb so nothing new.

 

Apple seems to get more right than wrong but this was one of the wrong ones...

post #61 of 72
Why can't they keep the previous app version available to shop while waiting for the publisher to "fix" the issue, if any, with an amended update? Jeez.
post #62 of 72

"Blue Steel"

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

I have a huge issue with the way Apple does the 17+ rating, it is too blunt of a rating to really be helpful.  It would be really nice if Apple had a separate warning & rating for content that could allow internet access from the 17+ rating so you could better rate these apps to the type of content they might give access too.  I say this because I've run across several apps that have the 17+ rating purely because they can access the internet but there is nothing about the app that allows access to inappropriate material.  Take for example some of the kidsafe web browsers that are rated 17+ purely because they access the internet, thus defeating the purpose of restricting content based on age rating.  It's about time they re-visited this & fixed it, it's been broken for far too long.

 

Indeed. It's funny that if you download Opera or some other browser for the iPhone and run the corresponding software updates you end up with pop-up alerts that make it look like you're just about to download some porn software or other adult content, meanwhile the factory installed Safari offers exactly the same access.

Maybe the entire iPhone should be X-rated...

Also, what about PhotoStreams? They can just as easily carry "objectionable" content as the 500px site or any other photography site, such as 1x.com.

post #64 of 72
Still waiting to hear a logical reason on hear that answers this question:

Why was this app pulled and the Flickr app wasn't? They do almost the exact same things and what I've seen, Flickr is far far far far worse.

Why hasn't Apple pulled the Flickr all?

What's the difference?
Seriously.
post #65 of 72

What about Instagram and Hipster?  Both have far more graphic content (yes, including penetration) and both are aimed at a younger crowd (the exact group that should not have access to this content).  Far more harmful, yet Apple does nothing. This is hypocricy and discrimination in their purest forms.

 

500px provides a toggle to bypass nudity (fine art), Instagram and Hipster do not have a way to exclude pornographic material.

 

There is nothing correct about Apple's decision.

post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirpopealot 
What about Instagram and Hipster?  Both have far more graphic content (yes, including penetration)

http://instagramers.com/destacados/mama-instagram-removed-my-account/

"On removed photos and accounts, we (Instagram Team) rely heavily on the Instagram community to help keep the photos on Instagram within our App Store guidelines and Terms of Use.
When a photo is flagged multiple times for nudity, copyright or another violation of our Terms of Use, it’s automatically removed from the site.
An excessive number of flags on multiple photos can result in permanent termination of an account.
Regarding nudity on Instagram, while we respect the artistic integrity of all sorts of photos, we’re doing our best to keep our product and all the photos within it in line with our App Store’s rating for nudity, which means we must remove such content when it’s brought to our attention"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirpopealot 
There is nothing correct about Apple's decision.

They do apply their rules inconsistently on occasions but they obviously haven't enough evidence to take action on the other apps. I'm sure if you have a valid complain about other apps, they'll review them too. There's no way they can police dynamic content easily so they will rely on user reports. Blame the users for reporting them.

These kind of actions tend to get into the porn/art debate just like torrenting gets into the open internet/closed internet debate. I side with openness wherever possible but there has to be a limit or porn and digital theft just ends up everywhere. Apple doesn't want to be seen to permit anything like that. Google has store rules against pornographic images too but they want to be seen as just a little more open than Apple as it works in their favour to portray Apple as big brother and themselves as the freedom fighters.

The addition of bokeh, a vignette and a sepia tone doesn't turn a picture of a naked girl spread eagled on a bed from porn into art because pornographers put out the same imagery. It doesn't stop it from being art but it puts it in the class of also being pornographic. If it was my App Store, I'd create an API that let users signup an adults-only username and password (this could even be a use case for a fingerprint sensor) and it could only be setup using a valid credit card. App Store developers who pushed adult content would have to hide their content behind the API. Adult App Store apps and erotic novels like the ones that are currently in the open like the sex position apps would be hidden from normal viewing and put behind an adults-only login.

But, it's not my store and Apple has decided to go the route of keeping things relatively clean just like Google albeit to a lesser extent. The accusation here is really that Apple isn't dirty enough.
post #67 of 72

Basically, what boggles the mind is this:

 

Apple DOES have ratings on the apps, you CAN restrict apps according to age ranges.

 

Exactly WHAT is rated 17+ if not "explicit" content? I mean, what's the point of being able to download a variety of Kamasutra apps, but you can't download an app that might *possibly* be used to access *some* pictures that *might* be construed as being pornographic?

 

If 500px had put up its app as a 4+, 9+ or 12+ app, I'd totally understand Apple's reaction, but an app that has a 17+ restriction should not face further scrutiny unless it violates the law of the land. As long as porn is legal, and as long as the app is rated 17+, Apple should stand back. The people who don't want to be exposed to stuff like that can easily restrict app downloads to the 12+, 9+ or 4+ range, depending on how infantile they are. After all, this is the USA and not Saudi Arabia.

 

There's really no need for a corporate entity to be the arbiter of what constitutes good or bad taste outside their very own product.

 

Just imagine you buy a butter knife and it came with an EULA that prohibits you from using that butter knife as a putty spatula, or to spread oil paint on a canvas. Or you go to an art supply warehouse and the oil paint comes with an EULA that prohibits you from using the paint for nude paintings, because the owner of the paint manufacturer is some born again nut case. If you buy the damn knife, paint, iPhone, whatever, you should be able to do with it as you please, regardless if it's bad taste or not, that's why you pay for it; it's not a free loaner.

 

I'm sure someone, somewhere wrapped an iPhone in something and used the vibration mode for some other than the intended purpose. Is the Apple police going to knock on their door and confiscate the device?
 

post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Apple DOES have ratings on the apps, you CAN restrict apps according to age ranges.

Not really though, it's like the dialogs you get on websites "Are you over 18 - yes/no".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Exactly WHAT is rated 17+ if not "explicit" content? I mean, what's the point of being able to download a variety of Kamasutra apps, but you can't download an app that might *possibly* be used to access *some* pictures that *might* be construed as being pornographic?

That gets covered here:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/29/heres-how-iphone-app-store-ratings-work-hint-they-dont/

Apparently sexual content and nudity is allowed but not graphic content. That word 'graphic' is really what's the problem. The following apps have nudity and have managed a 17+ rating:

http://www.appannie.com/app/ios/classic-nude-paintings-puzzle/
http://www.appannie.com/app/ios/pathways/

so I guess it would come down to the presentation and the amount. If you uploaded an app full of topless girls, the nudity wouldn't be graphic in the sense of pornogaphy but the app's purpose would be titillation. If it makes you reach for your zipper, it's graphic. I haven't seen many people doing that in an art gallery so that kind of nudity has to have a more acceptable presentation.

"We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone ... Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone"
"You know, there's a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go - so we're not going to go there."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/steve-jobs-reiterates-fol_n_544045.html

Although people are calling everything on 500px 'art' simply on a reactionary basis, the fact is a lot of it is also pornographic art. I don't want it to be banned from the store but that's because I like looking at it. I wouldn't want young kids who are interested in photography to be able to download it and see women bent over tables with their legs spread open. Yes they can find that in Google if they search for it and turn off the filter, yes they would technically be downloading an app with a rating they shouldn't be downloading and it's the parents to blame but the app is still violating Apple's policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
As long as porn is legal, and as long as the app is rated 17+, Apple should stand back.

Yes and while we're at it, let's get porn in all the gas stations, post offices and supermarkets. If I want porn, I should have easy access to it. In fact, let's just get it on daytime TV after Sesame Street. If the kids don't want to watch, they can have a 5 minute ad break to switch the channel.

Microsoft doesn't put porn on XBox Live, Sony doesn't put it on PSN, you can bet it won't be in the Windows 8 Store, there's none in Steam or Netflix or Hulu. And yet, Apple gets the criticism for being uptight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
There's really no need for a corporate entity to be the arbiter of what constitutes good or bad taste outside their very own product.

Who's product is the App Store?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Just imagine you buy a butter knife and it came with an EULA that prohibits you from using that butter knife as a putty spatula, or to spread oil paint on a canvas. Or you go to an art supply warehouse and the oil paint comes with an EULA that prohibits you from using the paint for nude paintings

http://www.steripen.com/media/wysiwyg/user-guides/classic-user-guide.pdf

"Do not insert into bodily orifices."

Bummer.

Apple isn't preventing you from using an iOS device to view porn, they just don't want to facilitate it. Microsoft and Sony are the real enemies here. It's way harder to get porn on their consoles.
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Apple DOES have ratings on the apps, you CAN restrict apps according to age ranges.


Not really though, it's like the dialogs you get on websites "Are you over 18 - yes/no".

 

 

Well, I'm not aware how to bypass parental restrictions short of jail-breaking the device or something. And if you're not really a kid, and it's not your parent that set the restrictions, then of course, it's OK that you can click through: you have been warned, and you're a responsible adult.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Exactly WHAT is rated 17+ if not "explicit" content? I mean, what's the point of being able to download a variety of Kamasutra apps, but you can't download an app that might *possibly* be used to access *some* pictures that *might* be construed as being pornographic?

That gets covered here:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/29/heres-how-iphone-app-store-ratings-work-hint-they-dont/

Apparently sexual content and nudity is allowed but not graphic content. That word 'graphic' is really what's the problem. The following apps have nudity and have managed a 17+ rating:

http://www.appannie.com/app/ios/classic-nude-paintings-puzzle/
http://www.appannie.com/app/ios/pathways/

so I guess it would come down to the presentation and the amount. If you uploaded an app full of topless girls, the nudity wouldn't be graphic in the sense of pornogaphy but the app's purpose would be titillation. If it makes you reach for your zipper, it's graphic. I haven't seen many people doing that in an art gallery so that kind of nudity has to have a more acceptable presentation.

 

The thing is, "real" art should not have any age restriction. Do you really think they stop kids from seeing the Acropolis in Athens or the Arthistorical Museum in Vienna or any decent art museum in the world, because there are nude sculptures or paintings in there? Art collectors all over the world have nude paintings in their living rooms, in full sight of creatures of all ages. Heck, until Ashcroft decided to drape a curtain over her, even the statue of Justice in de DOJ was a nude sculpture. You can walk into many catholic cathedrals and you see naked Adam and Eve on paintings. The whole point of age restrictions is exactly for when it stops being art and it starts being porn.

 

After all, tits are made for kids. Are they going to blindfold babies and tie their hands behind their backs before they can be breast fed? Or is it now child porn when parents take pictures of their 2 year old running naked on the beach? And what if iPhoto and Aperture start having nudity detection? Can't upload your private pictures to your photostream anymore or have the feds knock down your doors because of child porn because of some nude baby pictures on a photostream for relatives?

 

Someone in Cupertino please start having a brain, the situation is absurd.

 

Didn't know Apple, with the devil's symbol of the bitten Apple of Eve as corporate logo, is now run by the Amish or some other puritans...

 


"We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone ... Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone"
"You know, there's a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go - so we're not going to go there."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/steve-jobs-reiterates-fol_n_544045.html
 

 

I'm all for Apple not having porn in their store, if they allow for alternative sources of content download. If Google blocks porn in their store, then you can go to some other store. But if Apple wants to be the single source of content, they should then allow more liberal policies, provided things are rated according to the content. I have no problem with them banning people who try to sneak in software with a lower than applicable rating, but that was not the case from what I understand.

 

Although people are calling everything on 500px 'art' simply on a reactionary basis, the fact is a lot of it is also pornographic art. I don't want it to be banned from the store but that's because I like looking at it. I wouldn't want young kids who are interested in photography to be able to download it and see women bent over tables with their legs spread open. Yes they can find that in Google if they search for it and turn off the filter, yes they would technically be downloading an app with a rating they shouldn't be downloading and it's the parents to blame but the app is still violating Apple's policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
As long as porn is legal, and as long as the app is rated 17+, Apple should stand back.

Yes and while we're at it, let's get porn in all the gas stations, post offices and supermarkets.

 

You may not be aware of it, but that's pretty much the reality. The post office will gladly deliver porn magazines to your P.O.Box, and just about any gas station magazine rack has plenty of porn available, at least if Playboy etc. count as such; same goes for most major super markets that have a magazine section.

 

If I want porn, I should have easy access to it. In fact, let's just get it on daytime TV after Sesame Street. If the kids don't want to watch, they can have a 5 minute ad break to switch the channel.

 

which is exactly why you have *very* easy access to the various pay-per-view channels on your cable box. Heck, here's a predition: if Apple really decides to enter the TV business, you can pretty much decide its fate by whether or not something like Playboy TV and other channels like it will be available on it. Looking at cable providers revenues, that's a major source of income, and you can bet that all these customers won't switch to an AppleTV if they are cut off from their little private pleasures; it's too big of a business.

 


Microsoft doesn't put porn on XBox Live, Sony doesn't put it on PSN, you can bet it won't be in the Windows 8 Store, there's none in Steam or Netflix or Hulu. And yet, Apple gets the criticism for being uptight.

 

Game consoles are primarily for kids of various ages... (yes, some of them are over 30) But the hypocrisy that wanton violence in games is OK, but sex is not, is another subject that's neck-hair-raising, because I consider the violence i.e. the termination of life a lot more offensive than human procreation and the various games related to it (various S&M practices excluded)

 

However, again, the game boxes are an accessory to your TV, so if you don't get the content over your game box you'll get it over your DVD player or your cable provider's pay per view or premium subscription channels, so it's not like your TV is locked out. The problem is that because content on iOS devices is a single-source affair (unless you jail-break), the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the application of the "rules" is infuriating.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
There's really no need for a corporate entity to be the arbiter of what constitutes good or bad taste outside their very own product.

Who's product is the App Store?

 

I personally don't give a damn about porn, I've seen it, and I consider it boring. But I consider censorship of any shape or form, be it governmental or corporate, even more offensive. In a world in which ever more things that used to be public sphere become privatized, the reasoning that it's private and thus under corporate control, starts to stink ever more. Let's do a few more rounds of privatization, and you can light the bill of rights on fire, because there's no public ground left on which it's applicable, even though theoretically it's still in force.

 

This much like certain states revoking abortion clinics their license to operate even though not officially forbidding abortions. The result is that something that's federally protected is being defacto outlawed, by skirting federal law with state regulations.

 

I mean, nobody would stand for it if Apple would say we don't sell iOS devices to women, because we believe in male superiority, and we're a private entity, so we choose whom we sell to. But it's supposed to be acceptable for them to decide what is or isn't "decent" when it comes to art, particularly when there are multiple levels of protection as is the case with the 500px site where all nude pictures are by default blacked out anyway, and by far the minority of the provided content.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Just imagine you buy a butter knife and it came with an EULA that prohibits you from using that butter knife as a putty spatula, or to spread oil paint on a canvas. Or you go to an art supply warehouse and the oil paint comes with an EULA that prohibits you from using the paint for nude paintings

http://www.steripen.com/media/wysiwyg/user-guides/classic-user-guide.pdf

"Do not insert into bodily orifices."

Bummer.

 

 

This is a warning, not a prohibition ;) Apple can warn all they want about potentially offensive content, as long as they don't prohibit it.

 

Apple isn't preventing you from using an iOS device to view porn, they just don't want to facilitate it. Microsoft and Sony are the real enemies here. It's way harder to get porn on their consoles.

 

They do more than "not facilitate". They actively get in the way. And as I said, I don't even care about the porn, I do care about the slanted values when it comes to sex and violence on the one hand, and the wholesale classification of porn of a content that's largely non-sexual at all, has a reasonably small number of artistic nudity, and a few traces of pornography if you care to hunt for it long enough; none of which is visible at all, unless you first specifically enable it to be visible AND allow 17+ rated apps on the iOS device.

 

post #70 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
Well, I'm not aware how to bypass parental restrictions short of jail-breaking the device or something. And if you're not really a kid, and it's not your parent that set the restrictions, then of course, it's OK that you can click through: you have been warned, and you're a responsible adult.

That's a fair point - if parents take on the responsibility of enabling the controls, it would help things but companies always tend to make it easier for the parents. It's easier to make people who want it have to actively acquire it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
The thing is, "real" art should not have any age restriction.

That giant erect drawing is pretty obscene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_Giant

Just because it's old and people want to preserve it in public places doesn't mean it's appropriate for all ages. Different people have different views on the naked body. You wouldn't want to see this kind of thing on every billboard. It just works best for everyone to have it conservative and let people who really need to see it, go where they can see it. On the App Store, they get about 50 million downloads a day so they have to be a bit more responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
if Apple wants to be the single source of content, they should then allow more liberal policies

External sources can introduce security issues though and they have no obligation to allow more content sources. If people want that, Android is the platform to go to. If most people end up on Android for this reason, Apple might loosen up a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
the hypocrisy that wanton violence in games is OK, but sex is not, is another subject that's neck-hair-raising, because I consider the violence i.e. the termination of life a lot more offensive than human procreation

The depiction of sexual scenes can lead players to become sexually aroused. Violent imagery doesn't really have an equivalent effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
I personally don't give a damn about porn, I've seen it, and I consider it boring.

How dare you, sir. You take that back. Perhaps you haven't seen Grand Theft Anal 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
But I consider censorship of any shape or form, be it governmental or corporate, even more offensive.

Ah the old 'it's not about porn, it's about rights' argument. By that logic no company should be allowed to censor any offensive imagery that is legal and so you'd have to force everyone to sell everything. It's just not feasible and sellers have rights too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
I mean, nobody would stand for it if Apple would say we don't sell iOS devices to women, because we believe in male superiority, and we're a private entity, so we choose whom we sell to. But it's supposed to be acceptable for them to decide what is or isn't "decent"

That's not the same thing though. If someone makes a living selling pancakes, you can't force them to sell sausages because you like sausages. The seller can't discriminate against the buyer but they can choose what to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
This is a warning, not a prohibition 1wink.gif

Do you notice people wearing gloves a lot when they come to your house?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa 
the wholesale classification of porn of a content that's largely non-sexual at all

I found a lot of pretty sexual images in there. I've only been looking for a couple of days too. It's tough going having to click all the images multiple times but I've already classified it as a source of porn.
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Although people are calling everything on 500px 'art' simply on a reactionary basis, the fact is a lot of it is also pornographic art. I don't want it to be banned from the store but that's because I like looking at it. I wouldn't want young kids who are interested in photography to be able to download it and see women bent over tables with their legs spread open. 

 

I was born back in the dark ages when most kids had to rub two sticks together to see nudes.

 

But I learned the secret of the Library's photography section and it was great! (also the pagan/wiccan books had some "skyclad ceremonies" in them). Were some of those images pornographic? Probably, but not nearly as much as my uncle's Hustler/Penthouse collection under the bed. Or the even skeezier magazines I occasionally found in the local ELKs club trash can. Or the porn VHS tapes hidden in my friend's dad's secret compartment in the hutch by the VCR. Before I was a teenager I'd seen it all, because I wanted to see it and no one, not my mother, priests and nuns who taught me in school, or God himself was going to stop me.

 

Did it damage me? Did it turn me into some kind of misogynist who hates women and views them solely as objects to be used for my own pleasure? Obviously I don't think so, or I wouldn't be making this post because I'd be too busy out using women or looking for more gonzo porn on my android.

 

It's an uncomfortable fact of life that many children begin to develop a sexual drive long before they're emotionally ready for a sexual relationship. I recall that decade as one of agonizing desire without real hope of relief. Probably all of the above served to amp it up a little, but I was all over the Encyclopedia, Sears Catalogs and Nat Geos long before my library card opened a whole new world of porn. Even the most innocuous nudity was arousing and pornographic to my dirty little mind.

 

The idea that the app store is protecting any child from viewing porn (or art nudes, or whatever) is completely ridiculous. If they want it, they will find it. And many of them do want it.

 

So the irony of all this is that my interest in pornography started my interest in photography.

post #72 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewinski 
Even the most innocuous nudity was arousing and pornographic to my dirty little mind.

The idea that the app store is protecting any child from viewing porn (or art nudes, or whatever) is completely ridiculous. If they want it, they will find it. And many of them do want it.

Apple only really has two options - they either facilitate the acquisition of pornographic material or they don't. I don't think they expect that it's going to protect kids from it but they don't want to make it easier for kids to get it. Google removes adult content too:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/why-developers-should-worry-about-google-play/1148

""Reddit Is Fun" was ejected for linking to pages on Reddit that in turn link to NSFW content.

The Google Developer Content Policies explicitly state that apps may not link to content Google deems "Pornography, obscenity, nudity, or sexual activity.""

https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

"Sexually Explicit Material: We don't allow content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material.
Violence and Bullying: Depictions of gratuitous violence are not allowed.
Hate Speech: We don't allow the promotion of hatred toward groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.
Gambling: We don’t allow content or services that facilitate online gambling, including but not limited to, online casinos, sports betting and lotteries."

Boo Google - no violence, nudity, gambling or making fun of old people. Let's all have a go at Google for taking Reddit Is Fun down when they've left 500px in and the web browser. Hypocrites!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nude image search gets popular photo sharing app 500px pulled from App Store