How about giving users a choice? Proof of age maybe? They could allow apps with questionable content after being warned and proving the users age.
Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
11–20 of 216 posts
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#12Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. -- Anonymous Or, apparently, from a church.
It’s very strange wording that they use, they don’t want anything to be sexually “gratifying”. Like if it’s explicit content but you don’t find it “gratifying” they’re OK with that? It’s as if they don’t care about the content itself they just don’t want you to enjoy it.
It is strange, agreed. Maybe they are ok with explicit images for educational purposes (anatomy)?
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#13The same rules obviously do not apply to all players. As there are only two mobile platforms, maybe we need antitrust governance.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#14The users can at least sideload it. Unlike appstore.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#15Serious question: why is Twitter left unscathed? There’s tons of pornography and illicit activity on it. Is it ignored simply because of its size and clout?
This feels unjust because the enforcement is seemingly completely arbitrary. Why has Google/Apple decided to be puritanical with some things and not others.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#16The same rules obviously do not apply to all players. As there are only two mobile platforms, maybe we need antitrust governance.
Maybe you shouldn't use programs, devices and platforms that don't meet you criteria?
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#17Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. -- Anonymous Or, apparently, from a church.
It’s very strange wording that they use, they don’t want anything to be sexually “gratifying”. Like if it’s explicit content but you don’t find it “gratifying” they’re OK with that? It’s as if they don’t care about the content itself they just don’t want you to enjoy it.
I think the point of that is to distinguish between stuff that is nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos[1]) from stuff that could be deemed as corrupting young kids? But I’m guessing there.
As a European I do think the Americans get far to uptight about nudity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with nakedness, it’s not automatically sexual. Yet I’m constantly amazed how much casual violence is in family TV (Simpson’s, Tom and Jerry, etc). I find it weird that cutting a persons limbs off is more acceptable than a naked form. But I guess that’s a cultural thing.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#18There's a growing class of apps that are clearly intended to be used as image boards, but don't actually advertise themselves as being intended for any specific website. One common pattern are apps that require that the user type in a certain domain in order for them to work. Most *chan browser apps in this way. You manually specify a domain and board code, and only then does the app function. I can see this type of…
Hmm... Isn't this app called web browser? There is not much more than it is needed when it is for consuming content.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#19Serious question: why is Twitter left unscathed? There’s tons of pornography and illicit activity on it. Is it ignored simply because of its size and clout? This feels unjust because the enforcement is seemingly completely arbitrary. Why has Google/Apple decided to be puritanical with some things and not others.
This question is raised in the post, just using reddit and instagram as the examples instead of twitter.
Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content
#20Serious question: why is Twitter left unscathed? There’s tons of pornography and illicit activity on it. Is it ignored simply because of its size and clout? This feels unjust because the enforcement is seemingly completely arbitrary. Why has Google/Apple decided to be puritanical with some things and not others.
It's not arbitrary. Below certain size (i.e. negative PR potential) you are at the mercy of Google as a software company if you choose apps versus web sites.