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…
> nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos)
Pretty strange to call this "nudity, but not of a sexual nature".
She is literally the incarnation of the concept of sex.
There'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.
The 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?
That only works if there's a reasonable alternative. If you want to make a mobile app and the content gets you kicked from the Apple and Google stores, you're SoL.
There'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.
Yeah, it's a web browser in essence. But the UI, scrolling behavior, etc. are all handled by the app rather than the website. The result is often a much cleaner experience, especially compared to the average website's mobile web experience. There's also often extended functionality, like saving entire galleries of images, saving threads, etc.
What I'd imagine Artstation doing is releasing a "generic art showcase app" (or exposing APIs to let 3rd parties do so themselves), where users can manually specify www.artstation.com. The app would provide all the features that the Artstation app did.
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…
> nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos) Pretty strange to call this "nudity, but not of a sexual nature". She is literally the incarnation of the concept of sex.
I think what they would say is that the statue was not created nor are photos provided with an aim to ‘appeal to a prurient interest’.
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…
Not only is nudity not automatically sexual, sex is not automatically (or even remotely) evil. It's good and wholesome.
I can't imagine how harsh it is to take down the entire app because of this. Adsense will also sometimes find sexually suggestive CGI stuff in our website (they re good with virtual nipples!), but they will allow you to appeal and fix it. Tying your entire livelihood in their walled garden has gotten dangerous.
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 most powerful rulers of society, taboo ensured obedience to a system that enabled the powerful to rule, while as we so frequently see- violating the taboos beyond reason in far more perverse ways than unrestrained impulse motivates. Now that corporations have so strongly supplanted religion in the ruling of society, the suppression has moved from a place of religious principle, to one of purely pragmatic continuance of the dogma that maintains the status quo. Because why should Google have any philosophical position about the progression of society at all? It has under the conditions of the status quo become dominant, and so perhaps believes that its best interest lies in passively supporting the current system, no matter how fundamentally perverse it may be. But, this is a mistake. I know that Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as half of Google, run around naked in the Nevada desert every year, enjoying the beauty and freedom of the human body. So, to command the most powerful corporation in the world, and to know that our natural liberty is better than upholding millennia of repression, yet maintain it for a convenient profit without controversy, is if not evil, at least extraordinarily cowardly. If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss, there are fewer more fundamental places to start than in the acceptance of our own natural bodies and the pleasurable practices in which they engage.
> nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos) Pretty strange to call this "nudity, but not of a sexual nature". She is literally the incarnation of the concept of sex.
I think what they would say is that the statue was not created nor are photos provided with an aim to ‘appeal to a prurient interest’.
It would be hard to defend that claim as to the creation of the statue.
It's easier as to the provision of photos today, but opinions still vary.