Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

magazine.artstation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 216 posts

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#181

Post by heavyset_go »

krn wrote: post #69
brian-armstrong wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they'll want to, if they're ad supported. Adblockers don't run on native apps, and in general apps have better access to relevant ad sell info. A lot of ad supported companies are giving up on the web.

I take this as the best explanation why Reddit is pushing its app so hard, even though it has a one of the most visited websites in the world. It's not about user engagement with content. It's about user engagement with ads.

There's also the fact that native apps can collect more data on a user than web apps.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#183

Post by chmod775 »

pjc50 wrote: post #85
fulafel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a reference for this block list rumor? Sounds worrying.

Most ISPs use the "Internet Watch Foundation" blacklist. I'm not convinced that there was any real risk of Tumblr being added to it en masse . (I believe there was an incident a few years ago where an image of an Iron Maiden album cover on wikipedia got flagged, though)

> Most ISPs use the "Internet Watch Foundation" blacklist.

You mean: "Most ISPs in the UK".

That is very different from "most ISPs in Europe" or "most ISPs".

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#184

Post by chmod775 »

DanBC wrote: post #116
fulafel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a reference for this block list rumor? Sounds worrying.

It's not a rumour, it's well known that many ISPs use the IWF blocklists. https://www.iwf.org.uk/become-a-member/services-for-members/... The blocks are supposed to be used for individual pages, not the domain. https://www.iwf.org.uk/become-a-member/services-for-members/... In the past the IWF could only take action when an image was reported to them. Recent changes (2013) mean they are now allowed to search out this…

> many ISPs use the IWF blocklists.

Only UK ISPs, which translates to "hardly any" in an European context.

The UK is the outlier here. In some other European countries blocking websites may even be illegal unless some court was involved or the website contains outright unlawful content.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#185

Post by heavyset_go »

bad_user wrote: post #129
krn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take this as the best explanation why Reddit is pushing its app so hard, even though it has a one of the most visited websites in the world. It's not about user engagement with content. It's about user engagement with ads.

I’ve said it multiple times ... aggressive ad-blocking is hurting the open web, because publishers need a revenue stream to survive and they won’t go down without a fight. This means shitty native apps, walled gardens and DRM.

> This means shitty native apps, walled gardens and DRM.

This was the case before ad-blocking was popular.

Native apps with spyware and malware were the norm before web apps became a viable way to ensure people couldn't copy software.

DRM was around before most people had internet access, for example, CSS on DVDs was introduced in 1996[1].

For a lot of people, their first introduction the internet was through a walled garden[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System

[2] AOL's 'Walled Garden' (2000): https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB968104011203980910

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#186

Post by heavyset_go »

pedrogpimenta wrote: post #122
bhouston wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, you can not block ads in a native app. And they are so annoying on the reddit mobile app.

That depends. Blokada [1] does a pretty good job! [1] https://blokada.org/

Blokada is great, however I believe Reddit does a lot of paid native advertising and interweaving of ads within content.

I don't believe the ads in the latter category are pulled from an ad server, they're served from the same source as real content. Could be wrong though, I haven't used Reddit in a while.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#187

Post by odessacubbage »

Lazare wrote: post #173

There is a uniquely annoying feeling you get when you see someone powerful being utterly obtuse and wrong in a way that is damaging to others, but can't readily be challenged. Everything about this story is just so fundamentally wrongheaded. They're enforcing a deeply misguided policy in a way which is both inconsistent and unfair, yet also inept. There's just so much wrong here, it's hard to even know where to start…

if there's any bright side to this, there's the hope that the more absurd, restrictive & clearly unfair google's actions become, the more incentive there will be for businesses to move away from these walled gardens entirely. users will only deal with so much inconvenience from centralized providers before they trade it for the inconvenience of uncensorable alternatives. for the free and open internet, this is probably the best thing in the long run.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#188

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

xvilka wrote: post #108
glenndebacker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Flemish/Belgian museum try to post some historical Flemish Baroque paintings or statues on Facebook or a Google platform... For our clients that is a real problem. The irony is that you will a lot of those "explicit content" hanging or being displayed in Catholic Churches all over Europe so it has nothing to do with religion but only extreme (American) puritanism.

I always wondered how it is possible to be a nation of innovation and still be so idiotically puritanical. Clearly a smart person cannot support this step back into the dark ages of witch hunt.

Strongly disagree; intelligence does not prevent illogical behavior at all.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#189

Post by the8472 »

wccrawford wrote: post #139
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this to be one of the fundamental questions that will charaterize this new century: How is humankind going to cope with so much of humankind? How to deal with "someone's wrong on the internet"? There seem to be these possible answers: a) Everyone agrees to one narrative and moral standard. b) Everyone sticks to their little bit of the world and guards it with walls c) Live and let live and do not feed the t…

The problem with 'live and let live' is that you either choose to let people hurt other people, or you resolve to stop it. If you resolve to stop it, then you have to deal with that problem that everyone thinks different things are harmful. Some people honestly believe that porn is harmful to society and the individuals within it. It's not enough to just say "it's not harmful" because they believe it. And I can't eve…

> The problem with 'live and let live' is that you either choose to let people hurt other people, or you resolve to stop it.

Has the choice not already been made with westphalian sovereignty?

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#190

Post by RedComet »

laser wrote: post #29

The suppression of the viewing of the human body in its natural form, especially in art, is one of the deepest perversions of society. It seems so intrinsically tied to the suppression and control of pleasure by institutions seeking dominance over human life. When you control access to the natural pleasures of life, you have control over the motivations and operations of that life. In prior times, when religions were…

The suppression of pornography is one of the deepest perversions of society? I sincerely hope such views, which are actually themselves perverted, are not prevalent.
Post reply on HN