Live data from Hacker News

Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

magazine.artstation.com

71–80 of 216 posts

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#71
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think sex is particularly messianic, but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business - literally or metaphorically. This is just one example from a growing list of questionable moral behaviour and outright abuse of monopoly power. The political reality is that Google has serious trust and credibility issues on many fronts. The more this kind of thing happens…

It is also an example of the USA shoving down its morals to the rest of the world. Especially areas where partial nudity is accepted. One of the very first things in life a baby does is searching the nipple (which is darker than the rest of the breast) and sucking on it. Breast are very much part of nature and human life, yet we censor it as if it is something which shouldn't be seen. At the same time, we have no iss…

  but let me as European at least apply the norms of my country
Why do you want others to adapt to your culture ? Typically an european attitude if you ask me ;)

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#72

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.

These companies should already have that info. Just filter the apps for underage users, that simple.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#73
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 a…

Consider this yet another example why advertising is a cancer on society. (I'm gonna start collecting these in a list.) Creators want to do it, their users want to get it, but because it rubs the ad revenue charts the wrong way, the platform will not allow it.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt whatsoever that historians could easily demonstrate that the statue was not created as a form of pornography. It’s a religious icon.

I'll quote from Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EU96DSK/ ) (I'm pulling text from subchapter III.2.7, "Aphrodite", but my pulls are not necessarily contiguous in the original.) > Aphrodite's sphere of activity is immediately and sensibly apparent: the joyous consummation of sexuality. Aphrodisia , aphrodisiazein as a verb, denotes quite simply the act of love, and in the Odyssey ,…

There was a lot that happened in Ancient Greece that doesn’t happen now. If your entire point about it being sexual is based on the sensibilities of a population 2000 years ago then I suggest perhaps your view of the world needs an update. Eg Things like blood sports are now widely disliked and we no longer believe in multiple in Greek gods nor that the sun is pulled up via chariot.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#75
post #15

Serious 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.

Serious answer: they will be, probably soon. There doesnt seem to be a reversal of the trend towards Victorianism, so every tech is going to graduate to its "Professional" self. It probably signifies the end of an era for expressive media and a lot of progressive users are going to call them out for what they are:dinosaurs .

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#76
post #60
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.

> not doing so risks their business

The response should have been better filters for illegal content, not cutting off "adult" content. (" because in my opinion, there's nothing adulty in a fantasy artwork from the 70s which, the horror, shows both male and female uncovered breasts.)

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

4chan works really well on mobile. The only thing an app did for me was presaving content so I could view it offline.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#78
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 a…

> Fear of their brand being associated with sex

I'll never understand this. They won't. This is some US bsht, somebody somewhere came up with this thought and people just blindly applying it like it was true.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#79
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think sex is particularly messianic, but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business - literally or metaphorically. This is just one example from a growing list of questionable moral behaviour and outright abuse of monopoly power. The political reality is that Google has serious trust and credibility issues on many fronts. The more this kind of thing happens…

It is also an example of the USA shoving down its morals to the rest of the world. Especially areas where partial nudity is accepted. One of the very first things in life a baby does is searching the nipple (which is darker than the rest of the breast) and sucking on it. Breast are very much part of nature and human life, yet we censor it as if it is something which shouldn't be seen. At the same time, we have no iss…

It's the myth of "Community Standards" or, to be more precise "Contemporary Community Standards", which is a concept in American law and, I'm sure, the laws of other countries, which states that:

> Jurors are the judges of contemporary community standards, based upon their knowledge of the norms of the community from which they may come. The juror must also decide whether the "average person" in applying such standards would find that the disputed material appeals to "prurient interest" or is "patently offensive." Experts testimony may be used to testify about the nature of the contemporary community standards,' but such testimony is not constitutionally required.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contemporary-community-sta...

Back in the Dark Twentieth, you could maintain the polite fiction that even broadcast media was bound by these standards, as the FCC would go after local affiliate stations, not the mothership, for violating broadcast regulations. In theory, and, to some extent, in practice, local stations could regulate what got shown, so as to prevent what you mention: Distant townies trying to impose their standards on the locals.

This breaks down in the Internet Era, of course, because, while a website may claim to have Community Standards, a website is not a community. A website cannot have Community Standards, Contemporary or otherwise, because the people it has contributing to it are a pseudo-random mix of some vaguely-defined demographic, and, as you yourself show, can and will differ sharply on precisely the kinds of things Community Standards presume a strong majority in a community can agree on.

The Liberalization of the world has ripped a lot of veils off the cultural standards we used to abide by, and turned polite fictions, the kinds of things all the adults in the room could admit privately were not laws of nature but laws of local social norms, into, at long last, simple fictions, as might be found in a storybook. "Community Standards" is one such polite fiction, and it's been replaced by the standards of the platform owners.

We can remove the platform owners by federating and decentralizing, but "Community Standards", as-was, isn't coming back. Communication is far too important to allow the previous geographic segregation to reassert itself.

Re: Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

#80
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

She's just standing there... naked. That is not the norm for a statue of Aphrodite. It derives from the tradition of the nude Aphrodite of Knidos, which... made huge waves for titillation value:

> According to an account by Pliny the Elder, Praxiteles sculpted both a nude statue and a draped statue of Aphrodite. The city of Kos purchased the draped statue, because they felt the nude version was indecent and reflected poorly on their city, while the city of Knidos purchased the nude statue.

> The statue [...] was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos )

Just how strongly can we connect the Venus de Milo to the Aphrodite of Knidos? Well, it's a naked Aphrodite in a similar pose. Similar enough that it was originally attributed to Praxiteles. Aphrodite of Knidos is just standing there too, about to take a bath.

Imagine me posting a photo to Facebook showing a woman caught in the act of getting into her bathtub. She's not engaging in sex! Then again, videos of this exact subject matter are common on porn sites.

Imagine arguing that a still of Marilyn Monroe's dress getting blown up around her hips is about art, and not about sexual titillation.

Post reply on HN