31–40 of 70 posts
[1] http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/923540954/2013_Latest_High...
In related news, developers are welcome to cast shootings, stabbings, explosions and other gory images. Graphic violence seems to enjoy greater protection than nudity, both culturally and legally, in the U.S. For example, there's the variable obscenity standard, which shields children from sexual images but not images of extreme violence: http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch10.pd...
I wish software companies would stop trying to play moral police like this. It's so entirely subjective, and as you mentioned, moral standards vary wildly. But whatever. I'm sure this is going to keep kids from seeing "graphic" material, right? None of us ever went around our parents to see something we shouldn't have...
Chromecast lets you display arbitrary browser tabs, right? If so, same thing here.
It seems that it's not so much trying to play moral police as just not wanting to be to blame. People know that a web browser is just a conduit and that the device maker isn't responsible for what you browse. People don't have the same attitude toward apps, even though there's nothing fundamentally different.
It'll be interesting to see if they stick to this globally. The distinctly American prudishness regarding sex is almost a mirror image of large parts of the world with respect to cinematic violence. It's part of why you can be so sure these west coast companies will never monopolise the market in Germany, for example.
Don't American blockbusters, chock full of graphic violence, do quite well overseas in general? That seems to imply that the attitude towards cinematic violence is not the same at all.
In related news, developers are welcome to cast shootings, stabbings, explosions and other gory images. Graphic violence seems to enjoy greater protection than nudity, both culturally and legally, in the U.S. For example, there's the variable obscenity standard, which shields children from sexual images but not images of extreme violence: http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch10.pd...
On the other hand, there's nothing abnormal about the desire to look at nudity or sexually explicit material.
In related news, developers are welcome to cast shootings, stabbings, explosions and other gory images. Graphic violence seems to enjoy greater protection than nudity, both culturally and legally, in the U.S. For example, there's the variable obscenity standard, which shields children from sexual images but not images of extreme violence: http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch10.pd...
I wish software companies would stop trying to play moral police like this. It's so entirely subjective, and as you mentioned, moral standards vary wildly. But whatever. I'm sure this is going to keep kids from seeing "graphic" material, right? None of us ever went around our parents to see something we shouldn't have...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube allows this type of nudity.
Anecdotally, during last year's annual Christmas Monopoly game, my mother-in-law (who was out the game early) flashed us a YouTube movie of a lady getting her privates waxed, asking what the f was up with YouTube for allowing this. I must say it quite surprised me this type of content was allowed/condoned.
In related news, developers are welcome to cast shootings, stabbings, explosions and other gory images. Graphic violence seems to enjoy greater protection than nudity, both culturally and legally, in the U.S. For example, there's the variable obscenity standard, which shields children from sexual images but not images of extreme violence: http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch10.pd...
Who enjoys violence? Why possible value does graphic violence have for entertainment? There is nothing laudable about it. It is simply evil for evil's sake. On the other hand, there's nothing abnormal about the desire to look at nudity or sexually explicit material.
In related news, developers are welcome to cast shootings, stabbings, explosions and other gory images. Graphic violence seems to enjoy greater protection than nudity, both culturally and legally, in the U.S. For example, there's the variable obscenity standard, which shields children from sexual images but not images of extreme violence: http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/obscenityman/ch10.pd...
Although I strongly agree with your general sentiment regarding the USA's backwards policies on sexual content, I'm not sure it's accurate in this particular case. From the article:
> Also verboten are hate speech, violence and bullying and online gambling.
It appears to me that Google is simply attempting to block all "R-rated content" as opposed to just nudity, sex, etc.
It'll be interesting to see if they stick to this globally. The distinctly American prudishness regarding sex is almost a mirror image of large parts of the world with respect to cinematic violence. It's part of why you can be so sure these west coast companies will never monopolise the market in Germany, for example.
> "American prudishness" This is just name calling, and Americans get shit on for being culturally insensitive... Pornography is awful stuff. It exploits the way our minds work, and ruins peace and happiness. This isn't religiosity, I don't believe in the supernatural. It's just something I've come to learn as I've gotten older.
It'll be interesting to see if they stick to this globally. The distinctly American prudishness regarding sex is almost a mirror image of large parts of the world with respect to cinematic violence. It's part of why you can be so sure these west coast companies will never monopolise the market in Germany, for example.
> "American prudishness" This is just name calling, and Americans get shit on for being culturally insensitive... Pornography is awful stuff. It exploits the way our minds work, and ruins peace and happiness. This isn't religiosity, I don't believe in the supernatural. It's just something I've come to learn as I've gotten older.