Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#61

Post by Freak_NL » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:01 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #51

pmlnr wrote: post #38

In the Tumblr ban threads, people mentioned that all of these companies should simply make their progressive web apps and give the finger to the puritan idiots calling these decisions. I agree. The questions, however, are: how much growth can be achieved without play store/ios app? Is it viable? If yes, how? Can art be more important for a site (and it's investors), than immediate, quick growth?

Tumblr was sharing images of child sexual abuse, not just regular porn. It's only when they discovered the images of child sexual abuse that they took action. They'd left user generated porn content alone for many years. That's not "puritan idiots", that's people who are aware of the harm caused by the distribution of images of child sexual abuse to the survivors of that abuse and to their business from law enforceme…

A former Tumblr-employee reported that this was a change that was already being developed (the NSFW-filter that is) for over a year, and was announced within the company in September. The child porn was merely a catalyst.

A good amount of advertisers don't like porn, so you can't monetize Tumblr as effective. Tumblr's investors want a return on investment, and the former approach allowing any legally permitted content didn't work for them, so they resorted to this. They surely did their research, and are betting that the ban on erotic material is the most effective way of increasing the revenue of Tumblr.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#62

Post by Freak_NL » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:09 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #27

Dear corporations, As an european adult, I'm ok with adult and explicit content. Leave art alone.

A good part of their customer base (i.e., the advertisers) are not okay with explicit content, for a variety of reasons. Fear of their brand being associated with sex, puritan principles (their own or those of their customers), or just plain convinced that advertisements don't have the same impact when the content it is served with is arousing.

That is to say, the corporations don't care, and will grant you a scant allowance of nipples only in imagery of breastfeeding and classical paintings if and when enough high-profile people complain about it vocally to warrant some leniency.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#63

Post by Lectem » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:14 AM UTC

Looks like ArtStation didn't bribe Google like the rest of the big apps like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter... I'm surprised people forget that Google now IS evil and corrupt, and are just squashing "small" companies in favor of buying or destroying them

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#64

Post by zamalek » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

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…

I think the problem arises due to a very small portion of society that take it too far. The association between nudity and savagery has been grandfathered in. Even if the nudity is pure, people are explicitly or unintentionally afraid, and for good reason: we have children and death in porn. No reasonable person wants that, so we restrict the lot. ML probably could solve this specific problem, but we are too afraid to loosen the borders.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#65

Post by glenndebacker » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:21 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #27

Dear corporations, As an european adult, I'm ok with adult and explicit content. Leave art alone.

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.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#66

Post by yulaow » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:24 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #60

yulaow wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, their solution just destroyed whoever used nude art or in general their bodies as a mean of expressing themselves while doing nothing to abusers (especially pornbots are still active just as before)

Sure, but they're not responding because they're puritan idiots, they're responding because not doing so risks their business. Specifically, they risked being added to European block lists in use by almost all EU ISPs. Of course there are ways around this, but no business wants to tell its users to install Tor Browser Bundle to visit a website.

I understand this, what I am saying is that their current solution is totally ineffective and just PR, and if someone is gonna check the actual situation all the reasons that could put tumblr in the European block list are still there.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#67

Post by paraditedc » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:41 AM UTC

diminish wrote: post #3

Apple or Google don't ban URLs or websites on their Safari or Chrome browsers. Is that due to historical reasons or are there any laws regarding this?

Play Store/App Store => ISP

Android OS/iOS => Chrome/Safari

You are confused between the distribution platform and the client. It's ISP/Play Store/App Store's job to do filtering.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#68

Post by thinkingemote » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:46 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #38

In the Tumblr ban threads, people mentioned that all of these companies should simply make their progressive web apps and give the finger to the puritan idiots calling these decisions. I agree. The questions, however, are: how much growth can be achieved without play store/ios app? Is it viable? If yes, how? Can art be more important for a site (and it's investors), than immediate, quick growth?

With PWAs that are installed to a phone's home screen, and where Firefox is installed with privacy and blocking extensions, does it launch the website in a Firefox runtime with these extensions running?

My question is, are PWAs a way for platforms to promote websites with less privacy and adblocking? Similar to how an electron based app which just runs a website (like Discord) can also get around user added blocking extensions.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#69

Post by krn » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:48 AM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #50

pmlnr wrote: post #38

In the Tumblr ban threads, people mentioned that all of these companies should simply make their progressive web apps and give the finger to the puritan idiots calling these decisions. I agree. The questions, however, are: how much growth can be achieved without play store/ios app? Is it viable? If yes, how? Can art be more important for a site (and it's investors), than immediate, quick growth?

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.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#70

Post by laumars » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58

laumars wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being that is art, not pornography. Re the people who voted me down, I’m curious if you’ve done so because you consider that statue porn or because you don’t consider it art? Are you able to elaborate please :)

The statue is overt sexual content. See my sidethread comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18745277 .

“Overt sexual content”? She’s just stood there. That’s not a sexual pose, she’s not engaging in sex. Even if I take your point about the figure it depicts, it’s about as subtle a sexual icon as it gets.