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

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 85

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post







    vendetta? hardly. TS routinely deletes others' comments because they "don't add to the discussion" yet he allows himself to post all the inane comments he wants. others have called him on it but he pays no mind because, hey, it's good to be king.



    his comment above simply does not add to the discussion yet he leaves it, thereby making him a hypocrite.



    he relishes his "global moderator" and "administrator" titles so much that he's offering similar titles up to anyone with 1,000 posts or more.



    and the only reason he has 20,000+ posts is because he is usually one of the first commenters on an article, and the comment more often than not "does not add to the discussion". kinda like parents telling their kids to "do as i say and not as i do". this site consists of poorly written rumours and ads disguised as "articles", peppered with an occasional piece worth reading along with community moderators who just don't have the ability to wear two separate hats: their own opinions vs. what is necessary to maintain a decent site.



    and bullying? hardly. but don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. i have no desire to be a moderator.



    please, point me to the text you'd like me to read.


    Then go away?

  • Reply 42 of 85

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post







    I think the question of pornography is really down to how much it turns you on. A nude photo of Phil Schiller for example wouldn't be pornography. A nude photo of Tim might be though - he seems like a p90x guy and probably has rock hard abs. 


    You're assuming that porn requires strong fit men. 


     


    1- Gay porn, or women porn? I don't watch either, being neither gay nor a woman (yeah, I know, I'm a failure).


    2- You know some people have a fetish for fat, hairy, sweaty guys?


     


    I'd say a nude Phil Schiller qualifies just as well, for them.


     


     


    Of course,




     "The original definition of pornography is that it must be highly offensive to the point of believing that it actually damages society to view it."



    would suggest it's true for everyone. Nude PhilSchiller photos.... that's actually society-damaging material.

  • Reply 43 of 85

    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...

  • Reply 44 of 85

    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...

  • Reply 45 of 85

    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.

  • Reply 46 of 85
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    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.

  • Reply 47 of 85
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    cnocbui wrote:
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 85
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    cnocbui wrote: »

    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 - "
    <h1 id="user_article_headline">[SIZE=9px]Why I Might Ditch My IPhone for an Android"  in[/SIZE] [SIZE=9px]it, the author said:[/SIZE]</h1>


    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.
  • Reply 49 of 85
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    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.

  • Reply 50 of 85
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,213moderator
    cnocbui wrote:
    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?
  • Reply 51 of 85
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    "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 [B]possible child pornography[/B]. 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 [B]possible child pornography[/B]... /Facetious... seriously!... are they?... think about it [B]possible child pornography[/B] 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 [B]possible child pornography[/B], apple should include a flag that notifies the photo taker of the [B]possible child pornography[/B] when using the apple photo devices... /Facetious... ban facebook,twitter because of [B]possible child pornography[/B] in the form of sextexts photos send on twitter, and facebook... /Facetious
  • Reply 52 of 85
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    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 [B]possible child pornography[/B] photos posted to the web site... (so that they could hake it an easier job to find such [B]possible child pornography[/B]...

    but In reality, it is a professional web site so there is not much threat of [B]possible child pornography[/B]... maybe on other sites... oh no apple better get out the ban hammer for those sites do to [B]possible child pornography[/B]...
  • Reply 53 of 85
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    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.

  • Reply 54 of 85

    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.

  • Reply 55 of 85
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,166member
    According to Kurt Vonnegut the difference between nude art and pornography is presence of... pubic hair.

    And so it goes ....
  • Reply 56 of 85
    Pictures please...
  • Reply 57 of 85
    drowdrow Posts: 121member


    the world needs fewer prudes, not more.

  • Reply 58 of 85


    [QUOTE]Originally Posted by Abracadabra View Post



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


     


    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! image

     

  • Reply 59 of 85

    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! image

     

  • Reply 60 of 85


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

Sign In or Register to comment.