Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content | Hacker News Reader

Google Takes Down Artstation Android App for Explicit Content

magazine.artstation.com

291 pointsapersona204 comments

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.

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, the more likely they are to turn into antitrust issues.

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 issues with all kind of violent games. Hello double standard! That you wanna have that in the USA is up to you Americans, but let me as European at least apply the norms of my country. You would not expect anything less as American!

But yeah... Civ cultural victory, and all that...

In EU there's already been complaints about Google only allowing their Play Store and hampering 3rd party stores, and Google lost that lawsuit.

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.

The US has pretty liberal standards on pornography and art...I mean most pornography and such art is produced in the US itself. Tasteful nudity in the US is not frowned upon, perhaps in public, yes...but I don't know of many countries where that isn't frowned upon outside beaches. I'm not sure what you're referring to, or if you are that familiar with the US. The UK on the other hand and some other European countries...and many Eastern countries are battling porn/nudity if not outright banning it. With the UK even requiring you to register with your ISP. The US's FCC does have some stringent guidelines, but their restrictions only apply to OTA. What countries have a more liberal view? France? Germany? Spain, a few small countries here and there, maybe? Otherwise...not many others.

> I mean most pornography and such art is produced in the US itself

Most US pornography is produced in San Fernando Valley - I don't think you can generalize porn/nude art across the US so perhaps you ought to have said "California has pretty liberal standards on pornography and art".

Janet Jackson's Nipplegate wouldn't have been a big deal in any of the European countries you mentioned, but Americans were scandalized.

Most porn USED to be produced in the SF Valley, I used to work in the industry. A whole series of new laws forced the industry out of California. My old boss sells insurance now. A lot of modern porn is now produced in eastern europe. Basically no new porn is produced in SFV, only the softcore companies like Vivid are still in business here.

I know free porn on the web was debilitating to the industry; however, to my knowledge no US state is close to CA's production, even now; which was my point, it's not like there's a whole lot of (professional) porn coming out of OH, MS or IL

In Kansas you must have a license to produce porn legally (to do so otherwise is a felony that district attorneys vigorously prosecute), and the state government doesn't operate an office to issue those licenses.

My experience is actually the reverse. USA weirdly conservative about nudity - to the point that Americans often confuse nudity and pornography (as you had done in your post replying to a person talking about nonsexual nudity).

I don't believe I confused pornography with nudity, I am merely stating that pornography and nudity are both fairly accepted outlets in the US. I do believe that many foreign people (largely Europeans) believe the US is very conservative in regards to nudity and are just flat wrong...likely because they have very limited experience in the US.

I see no reason to think this has anything to do with the US. For instance Steam recently decided to allow openly sexualized games. The relevance there being that they've absolutely made sure that they're not going to run into legal issues in the US doing that. And it turns out, they're not.

So this is coming from Google. Their motivation is much harder to discern. Related to advertising? Avoiding store segregation as they expand into e.g. various far more conservative Asian or Islamic nations? Trying to create a 'Disney-Esque' image for Android as opposed to being that naughty back alley alternative to Apple? Maybe it was an algorithm or even human gone awry. Lots of possibilities, and we'll likely never know which it was - even if they choose to respond to this.

I think it's clearly advertisers, tumblr and reddit are going through a similar cleanup as they mature. You start with free principled user focused values, grow to a critical mass, then disneyfy for that sweet cash. This leaves a vacuum for a new entrant to go through the same process. Maybe that sweet spot between basement project and corporate success is where ultra freedom is destined to remain.

I think this mechanism is the core of why we feel a vague sadness when sites like github get bought by big corps. You tacitly know it's the beginning of the end on some dimension.

You can thank SESTA/FOSTA for all this. Past precedents don't matter anymore; there will be heavy-handed policing now everywhere, if only to firmly establish intent should it ever come to court.

Especially when it's done in such a way that favors the bigger players - he gives two perfect examples in Instagram and Reddit - reddit especially is well known to have nearly as much pornography as the "tube sites" do, and one need only click "I am an adult" to view it.

Just pointing out that Google's not the sole offender here. Apple is known the be stricter on this

"but I also don't see why censoring and policing nominally adult content should be Google's business"

Google Play is like a shopping mall, a privately owned public space.

There will be standards.

If you put up some questionable ads in your local mall, you'll get asked to have them taken down.

Those spaces are not intellectual zones, or bastions of expression. They are public/common areas and subject to some kind of basic rules of expression.

Your local library has some rules.

So does your school.

So does your University.

There are infinitely url's that you can use to access content according to a different set of norms, you're free to use them at any time.

This thread exhibits one of the failing aspects of intellectual idealism, in that it so often fails to take into consideration the community - you know - 'other people's opinions'.

Bad analogy. It's a custom shopping mall that is built just for you. If you want a fully uncensored experience you should get it.

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.

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures (Christian, Muslim) have/had rules against public nudity? I had, and my (layman) conclusions were that public nudity creates too much sexual tension, and that is bad for stability of society. Hence, societies just function better without public nudity.

Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society. Do you think that is also true?

Going back to the nudity example, have you ever been to a topless beach? As an American who grew up in the religious south, my first trip to a topless beach in Europe was interesting for a bit but then just became normal. There was not any growing 'sexual tension'.

I have friends who are nudists and they say the same thing. It becomes normal quickly, and then it's not even a thing.

> Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society.

It's a bit stronger than that, because not only all successful cultures banned public nudity - also all cultures that tried public nudity failed.

Re: topless beach - going to a topless beach once a while vs living in a society where everybody around you is naked all the time are two different things. Imagine a workplace where your female colleagues (if you're a straight male) are naked. There's a reason why some of the best schools in the world still separate pupils by sex.

> Imagine a workplace where your ... colleagues are naked.

I just imagined that - and indeed, you're right that the possibility is quite offensive to my personal taste, and even frankly disquieting. But whereas you might try to explain this as the result of "too much sexual tension", I would instead place the blame on its very opposite. (And the fact that the colleagues might be of the gender I'm occasionally attracted to does not improve things one bit.)

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures today are the ones that tend to be less rather than more prudish?

I'd say the weakening of prudishness is recent phenomena and it's too soon for it to have an impact on society's success. We'd need to wait a couple hundred years to see where it leads.

Not true, the US is quite prudish and successful. The OP I'd a fine example; if Google would be French or Japanese I doubt this would be an issue.

US is far less prudish than median. If you compare it to other developed countries, sure, it's on the more prudish end. But if you compare it to most everywhere else, it's a whole different story.

For example, Sayyid Qutb - the grandfather of modern Salafism - became radicalized after visiting US in 1940s, and observing its culture. Here's how he describes it in his writings:

"The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it."

"They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire."

A brief reading of Wikipedia states that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks didn't have much against nudity. Minimal clothing was worn in Egypt. And the Greeks even said that other countries disliked their nakedness: "generally in countries which are subject to the barbarians, the custom is held to be dishonourable; lovers of youths share the evil repute in which philosophy and naked sports are held, because they are inimical to tyranny;"

Edit: Reading further, it's saying that public topless-ness was common in Japan until the American occupation after WWII, so there's a more recent example as well.

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 trolls, cause haters will hate. So be it.

Any one of a) or b) put to extremes wouldn't make a nice world to live in.

It would either come with a global harmonization effort that will feel opressive. (This is what you are feeling in this instance)

Or it would be a world comprised of iron curtains. With whatever harmonization and opression going on within each region.

In any way, c) seems to me the most favorable outcome. But I have no idea how to get there since a) and b) appear to be the popular choices nowadays.

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 even say that it's not. Promiscuous sex transmits diseases that absolutely do harm people, and there are psychological aspects that I'm not even knowledgeable enough to start giving an opinion on.

Firstly, porn != sex. There's no disease that can be transmitted through pornography that I know of.

Secondly, the human race will die out pretty fast without sex.

Food may kill you too, yet it's still needed so we can live™.

So clearly this isn't an useful criterion.

Self- or consensual "harm" should be excluded from anybody else's business. Most sexual activity fits under this category. It's not a difficult problem.

> 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?

But you also understand their motivation, right? They don't want any boycott campaigns and protests from the loud minority, both inside the company and outside of it.

it is not really google’s fault. google is obeying american norms. if they were to allow naked pictures you can be sure some senators etc. will be outraged and start their pitchforks. the tragedy here is that google’s dominant position means all other countries have to follow american norms.

You can find pornography easily with many Google products, their search app included. I hear no outcry.

>progression of society

how is reducing ourselves to animals running around naked with no impulse control "progress"? Is pleasure your only goal in life? The hard work and years of effort to make scientific breakthroughs sure as hell isn't fun, but the results are beneficial

>If we want to transition from a society of repression and suffering to one of liberation and bliss

"repression" is what makes society possible. If every one is free to do what they want and seek their own pleasure with no societal control, your only rule is might makes right.

Pretty much every religious rule you're criticizing was for the benefit of the weak. The strongest can just crack your skull and do as they please without any rules holding them back

it's likely an extension of dominant males restricting reproductive access to other males. Interestingly this is not a feature of every species, Bonobo monkeys have a matriarchal society and go quite a bit beyond grooming in order to maintain social relationships within their group.

So you don't mind wading through some 'rape porn' while you try to find the next bus time? Because there's nary any real definition of 'art'.

Your position is nice, but it's academic.

We could even disagree on the academic points, but it would be futile: topless women and men with their dongle's hanging out are not going to be in Google Play, just like you won't see them on street signs or in shopping malls in the US, Germany, or most other places frankly.

I don't buy any of the historical (i.e. religious) or national (i.e. USA) arguments: in the UK and Sweden, they are banning scantily clad women in ads on the basis of 'sexism' for god's sake. And even if they weren't, you're not going to find men with their dongle's in your Taxi ad anytime soon either - anywhere on earth basically.

In reality, there will always have to be a line drawn somewhere.

Tumblr became a porn haven, and for whatever reason, they didn't want that, so they moved it.

If there were no recourse, then I think there'd be an issue here, but there are basically infinity recourses. All you hav to do is type a url into your browser to get your 'Heavy Metal' avatar.

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.

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. They're looking for stuff they shouldn't, in the wrong places, and doing a horrible job of it. There's no reason they should be cracking down on the scourge of random cartoon nipples, but even if there were, they should give content providers who are making good faith efforts to flag content the benefit of the doubt, which clearly they did not for ArtStation. Meanwhile they're incorrectly flagging content, but even worse, they're not applying this policy to, you know, Reddit, Twitter, Instagram or, you know, Google themselves. Even if we needed to protect people from occasional nudity (and again, we don't), this isn't even achieving that. It's like deciding you need to do something drastic to prevent yourself from starving, so you set your couch on fire, while having a fridge full of food.

It's all downside; it makes the world a worse place, helps no one, and Google will pay (effectively) no penalty for it.

Merry Christmas to us all.

When something can't be fixed directly I naturally tend to think about how it could have been avoided in the first place.

> 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.

I think it comes back to the power structure in place. The enormous money machine that is Google has so few competitors that there is no incentive to treat its customers well. What is Teo going to do? They're already in the App Store. Their appeal was denied.

The part of this that makes me angriest is that Artstation will now have to start paying Google to use their Vision API to implement the censorship requirements Google has imposed on them. My more conspiratorial instincts suggest that this is no more a coincidence than an old school protection racket would be a coincidence.

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.

Google is unable to scale its ability to moderate its platforms with its level of growth, and we're seeing the effects of its implementation of "zero tolerance" in this uncontestable, absolutist decision making that customers can only have addressed by stirring up a potential PR stink.

Just like in many governments, it's significantly easier to address the immediate concerns of a few powerful entities and just the outcome of elections of the masses, except when they organize.

Google, for good or I'll, has truly become a model virtual nation.

Pretty funny how their cash hoarding can scale to $100b+ but they can't provide any level of support or recourse to Play Store developers at all.

Let's be realistic, this applies to all walled gardens, including Apple's store.

Oh, absolutely. The story was about Google, but it's at least as true (and has been true for longer) about Apple.

Similar comments could be made about Tumblr, which has implemented similarly wrong headed policies in a similarly incompetent way, and has also done a ton of damage, although it's less frustrating watching a single site do it. Ultimately Verizon owns Tumblr, and they can ruin it if they like, and the damage will be somewhat limited because it can't really spread beyond Tumblr.

Google and Apple have vastly more power over vastly more of our digital lives.

As a libertarian, I reflexively resist suggestions of regulation, but actions like this (or on a somewhat different vein, Facebook's) make that position harder and harder to support. It's hard to overstate the power that running the dominant Android app store gives Google, and thus the responsibility they have to use that power wisely.

Unfortunately, even if we wanted to try the regulation option, the current political climate makes that a non-starter; the neo-Victorian sexual panic is firmly entrenched in Congress (see, eg, SESTA/FOSTA). We're screwed.

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.

Indeed. A lot of work has been put into degrading the mobile experience with banners and prompts and delays to force users onto the app. Sensible people use BaconReader, but I wonder how long that will be allowed to continue.

Are there in fact forced delays? Couldn't be sure it it was my connection or js bloat.

Every third-party Reddit and Facebook app I've tried has seemed as if it was throttled or blocked.

Why not open source apps like RedReader?

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.quantumbadger.redreader/

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.

You can block hosts on rooted phone easily, so if it's an ad network, it can be done. If it's first party, or in-content, ala tumblr, it's not been done yet, as far as I'm aware - that doesn't make it impossible though.

Yes you can, although it's slightly harder than installing a browser extension: https://pi-hole.net/

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.

Ads hurt the open web, because advertisers normally don't want to show up alongside even moderately risqué content. If we want sites with real freedom of expression, we have to find a real way to pay for it - via crowdfunding, micropayments, or whatever.

> 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

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

Most people don’t run Adblock on mobile and probably aren’t getting any better ad rates running native ads vs mobile web.

Mobile app can gather a lot more user data.

Yeah it can, but I don’t believe it generates much more revenue for the publisher.

I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I'd bet most Reddit users do run an ad blocker.

On mobile web? I think I’d take the other side of that bet.

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 enforcement activity.

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.

> 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.)

I'm not saying it's a competent response. I'm saying it's not a response from puritanical idiots.

How is it not? How is banning nudity on a platform that rose on top of sex-positive attitude is not a puritan decision?!

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)

I would very be surprised if most eu isps used a secret blacklist (contents not publushed) maintained abroad and legit communities/platforms like tumblr could just be banned out of the blue. Would it even be legal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_...

NOTE: The image is on the article above the fold.

> On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a British watchdog group, blacklisted content on the English Wikipedia related to Scorpions' 1976 studio album Virgin Killer, due to the presence of its controversial cover artwork, depicting a young girl posing nude, with a faux glass shatter obscuring her genitalia. The image was deemed to be "potentially illegal content" under English law which forbids the possession or creation of indecent photographs of children. The IWF's blacklist are used in web filtering systems such as Cleanfeed.

You can see from my note how much long-term effect this had on Wikipedia.

The block on that page was for four days. Of course that had no impact on WP.

> 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".

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 content.

Those blocks should take the form of "splash pages" warning that the content is illegal. Some of the splash pages provide links to charities working with potential offenders to reduce their likelihood of offending. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tackling-illegal-images-n...

But Interpol has a list of "worst of" content where the domain is expected to be blocked: https://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children...

Together this means that a site that has images of child sexual abuse, and which does nothing to proactively stop that content, is likely to face increasing levels of regulations. It's also a pretty poor look for advertisers. I'm not saying that Tumblr's response makes any technical sense. I am saying that it makes sense from a business perspective.

> 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.

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.

I don't buy this on timing grounds; there will have been people posting child abuse and moderators deleting it from day 1 of Tumblr. What changed now? It has to have been FOSTA/SESTA fallout or pressure from their payment processor. Or the cost/benefit of the moderation got out of hand.

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.

Yes, but if getting around app store blocks is the only reason to use such a channel, the only apps that will be delivered this way are those that would be blocked in the app store. That's a tough crowd to support.

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.

This question is raised in the post, just using reddit and instagram as the examples instead of twitter.

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.

> Why has Google/Apple decided to be puritanical with some things and not others.

Good question.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=learn+colors+sy...

What I want to know, is there a timeline of public statements by YouTube about ElsaGate? Last time I heard the first and last thing they said was to pat themselves on the back in advance over how thoroughly and trustworthily they will deal with this, and Disney said they'll work closely with them to make it all awesome, and then... nothing? Did I miss something, other than still being able to find EG videos in 5 seconds, over a year later?

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 .

This seems like it could be applied to any app designed to display user-generated content on a single site or family of sites, obviously including Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, etc. since I'm pretty sure it's possible to find nudity on any of those just with some casual browsing.

Should also probably be applied to Messenger, Hangouts, Skype, Duo, WhatsApp, etc. since I'm pretty sure there's nudity and sexual content on those as well, and you can likely find it pretty easily.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure I can find explicitly sexual content in Chrome running on Android. Has Google considered what a potential disaster this could be for them? Perhaps they should remove Chrome and other general-purpose web browsing apps, or define what it is that makes those applications different from the ones they do ban.

On a different note, can this be applied to reverse some annoying things? Does Reddit allow access to "adult" areas in the mobile app and if not do they play the annoying "wouldn't you like to use the app instead" in those areas on mobile browsers? Can you bypass that by marking your subreddit as "adult" if you don't have a significant volume of under-18 readers?

Edit: "Google Android: Like AOL, but with less porn! And we have Candy Crush!"

There's a pretty obvious separation though between public and private media apps. I doubt private chat apps will get heat like this.

I've never used WhatsApp so I'm not sure how public vs private it is, but apparently it has a child porn problem: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/20/whatsapp-pornography/ (also see many results for "whatsapp child porn" with different variations of related info). Would that be one of those private chat apps?

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.

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.

> 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.

It's interesting to compare this with how much pressure you have to put on advertisers to get them to dissociate from far-right content. Seemingly brands are happy to appear alongside articles demanding that refugees be murdered at sea.

I don’t think that’s quite it.

I remember back in the 1990s lots and lots of pearl clutching about various companies using sex to sell their products, especially beer. The idea that now advertisers are afraid of sex doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

What I really think it is is that most adults are pretty meh on the whole thing one way or another. Most of us look at some porn, but aren’t heavy users. There are however a very vocal minority who hate all adult content, and I think they’re being very successful in pressuring companies to take it down.

Does that relate to this case though? The only one who should care about advertising on ArtStation, is ArtStation. Why would google have ads on their phones that care about ArtStation app?

People have the choice to install any given app or not. They don't need to be puritanically mothered.

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.

The Holy See should make an app containing every nude Michelangelo ever painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. I'd love to see the headline, "Vatican banned from the Play Store."

The Holy See famously had pants painted over many of Michelangelo's nudes.

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.

Really? I know engineers of all stripes who hold fundamentalist religious views.

I know an engineer doing well at Amazon for 7 years now, who pays a 3rd party streaming service that sensors violence and sexuality from movies for him.

Musings on it here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

I think it’s messed up as a society that women’s bodies are more taboo than shooting people; people are more squeamish around cartoon pictures of breasts than cartoon pictures of people using rifles, and that’s scary to me.

I think this is just google enforcing US cultural norms, but it would be great if there was some kind of US public framework companies could use instead of having to make these calls on their own.

Disclosure: male google employee in an unrelated part of the company with no insider info. My opinions are my own.

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.

Oh yeah, no problem. If you don't like these tangerines over here, why don't you try a mandarin? Ok, fine then, don't like those - how about a valencia orange? No? How about just a regular orange?

Oh you're allergic to citrus? Too bad then.

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.

>Google’s Vision API doesn’t even flag one of the images as violating

We have used AWS's Rekognition API for moderation in our dating platform for over 200,000 images per month. As far as nudity detection is concerned; Rekognition performs optimally.

I tested it against the Hell Girl image by TB Choi & it detects the nudity[1] & also detects the weapons under general Object/scene detection[2].

But I would warn against using Rekognition for anything related to gender as it is very biased and would behave indifferently towards people with colored skin. I have raised concerns about the bias in the Rekognition data set with AWS team & also other media outlets have covered it at length.

With that being said, I feel sad that we are in a state where such beautiful art should be moderated where as applications exploiting children are being given a free run.

[1]:https://imgur.com/a/FyJ5V56 [2]:https://imgur.com/a/LlfS7wO

Somewhat unrelated - ArtStation has a browser extension that randomly opens a random artwork every time you open a new tab, and I highly recommend it, it's one of my favorite extensions and a great way to see some stunning artworks, it always brightens my day.

On topic - dumb decision, nothing new, not very surprising, waiting for PWAs to get to a point where arbitrary Apple/Google rules don't matter anymore.

The extension sounds cool. Have you found it SFW?

About as SFW as the front page of ArtStation, which is, in my opinion, very. Though who knows, I guess you might see an occasional elf boob or something.

Hmm, for some reason that extension doesn't exist for Firefox.

And Mozilla's boneheaded policy of not allowing unsigned extensions, and apparently continuously breaking an addon that tried to automate signing extensions [0] means there is no easy way to install the chrome one.

[0] https://github.com/Noitidart/Chrome-Store-Foxified/issues/12...

Great idea!

Link: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/artstation-discove...

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 scheme increasing, as it puts a degree of indirection between the app itself and the objectionable content. There's a stronger element of deniability: the user is the one that's navigating to a separate website that hosts objectionable content. The app itself is "clean" so to speak (even though it's obviously not the case in practice).

Hmm... Isn't this app called web browser? There is not much more than it is needed when it is for consuming content.

Reminds me more of a Gopher (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)) kind of web in this case, given the stricter structuring.

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.

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

And how will they include ads? API users can just not display those.

Maybe when it pulls a gallery of photos from the API, it injects a few ads. Or the ads could be served by the app itself.

There's a lot of Wikipedia content that would match forbidden content in this policy too.

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?

It should be illegal to do that.

I think it's due to how they cultivated the image of their walled garden app stores as curated and moderated against "bad stuff" like adware etc and now you have people with a puritan/sex-regressive stance leaning on that image and sesta / fosta bills to "protect us all".

With the recent push for PWAs, it will be interesting to see if communities like artstation use these instead.

I am wondering why are not just tagging this apps, then by default not allow you to install unless you confirm on an alert box and put your password. Seems a win-win, you keep both camps happy and probably spend less on attempting to filter your content so not to trip over AIs detection algorithms and bad moderation from the stores.

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.

It's not an outright ban, but it's not far off: https://safebrowsing.google.com/

They could add editorial policies to those criteria whenever they wanted. Or change a line of code to turn a drastic warning into a full block.

I assume it's due to firefox, i.e./edge, opera, and so on.

Any 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)?

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.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo

> 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.

Edit: my comment was wrong, ignore it.

---

You need to get a bit more in touch with history; that statue has nothing to do with "sexually gratifying". It was in the days when minos culture fashion looked like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=minos+culture+fashion&t=ffab&iax=i...

> It was in the days when minos culture fashion looked like this

The Minoan culture is more or less contemporaneous with the Mycenaean Greeks who fell in the 12th century BC, ushering in the Greek Dark Age which lasted about 400 years.

Wikipedia dates the Venus de Milo to the late second century BC. Aphrodite is not even attested in Mycenaean records.

You're off by over a thousand years.

As such, I'll respectfully reject your suggestion that I need to get more in touch with history.

My memory tricked me. You are correct. I'm sorry.

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, the name of the goddess is already used in the same sense.

> However impious the apotheosis of sexuality may seem in light of the Christian tradition, modern sensibility can nevertheless also appreciate how in the experience of love the loved one and indeed the whole world appears transfigured and joyously intensified, making all else seem insignificant: a tremendous power is revealed, a great deity.

> Behind the figure of Aphrodite there clearly stands the ancient Semitic Goddess of love, Ishtar-Astarte [...the text lists many correspondences between the two deities...] In the process of transmission from East to West a part was probably played by frontal representations of the naked goddess

> Unabashed acceptance of sexuality is, however, not a matter of course even in Greece.

> In the iconography, the naked oriental figure was supplanted as early as the first half of the seventh century by the normal representation of the goddess [emphasis added] with long, sumptuous robes and the high crown of the goddess, polos. Fine attire is Aphrodite's specialty, most notably necklaces and occasionally brightly colored robes intended to give an oriental effect.

> It was not until about 340 that the statue of a naked Aphrodite apparently preparing to take a bath was created for the sanctuary in Cnidos by Praxiteles; for centuries this figure remained the most renowned representation of the goddess of love, the embodiment of all womanly charms. The statue was displayed in the round so that it could be admired from all sides; Greek sources suggest that it excited more voyeurism than piety.

That is the tradition into which the Venus de Milo falls. Let me suggest to you that your ideas of how people can view their religious icons are rather more restricted than historical practice would justify. We're talking about a statue showing the apotheosis of sexuality flaunting her supernatural sex appeal.

Sexual content was routine even outside the context of Aphrodite specifically. For example:

> At the doors of the anaktoron [in Samothrace] two bronze statues of ithyphallic [priapic] Hermes were to be seen. Originally these could have been just phallic boundary markers, but the mythical explanation was that Hermes had got into this state of arousal because he beheld Persephone.

(Subchapter VI.1.3, "The Kabeiroi and Samothrace")

EDIT:

From Wikipedia, on the Aphrodite of Cnidos:

> 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.

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.

>>>> 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.

On the other hand, I feel fairly confident in claiming that women wearing nothing but a sheet that doesn't quite cover their butt are considered sexy in the modern day too.

Would you believe that, say, souvenir postcards of nude Aphrodites sell better than souvenir postcards of Zeus? Why do you think that might be?

If you want to argue that the Venus de Milo is "nonsexual" nudity because it's historical art, you need to deal with its historical significance, which is as a tawdry sex icon.

If you want to argue that the way the Greeks viewed the statue doesn't matter, you need to deal with the way a statue of a naked woman failing to cover herself with a sheet would be viewed in the modern day, which is... as a tawdry sex icon.

Women walk around topless all the time on European beaches.

To be honest I think it’s hypocritical to say women should have their chests covered when men don’t have the same rules.

But we are drifting waaaay off topic now.

The issue here is the distinction between art that depicts nudity (with or without eroticism) and pornography. This is the sort of thing that has been discussed at great length by the Supreme Court, and I doubt if we’re going to make any headway debating it here. I would suggest referring to historical legal discussions.

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.

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.

( 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.

Re the bath tub example, that’s an interesting example because it’s quite common to have pictures of children playing in the bath or at the beach and obviously that’s not porn. We also have communal changing rooms in gyms and some swimming pools. Some Northern European countries have communal steam rooms where the etiquette is full nudity; and that’s not a sexual thing either (well, not to anyone who actually uses them anyway). There are nudist colonies and all sorts. Again they aren’t a sexual thing. What about breastfeeding? Women should have to hide away in toilets to feed their babies and there’s nothing sexual about feeding a child.

Thus the issue is really more of sensibilities than anything. Nudity isn’t a big thing in Europe like it is in the US. It’s common for women to walk the beaches topless; and frankly they should be allowed to since it’s perfectly natural and men do it too. The whole “the statue is topless so it’s sexually explicit” comment is really weird to read in the context of European attitudes because we differentiate between nudity and sex (as the earlier examples demonstrate). Which is probably also why America needs the “free the nipple” (and similar) campaign if people like yourself consider any form of nudity to be sexually explicit regardless of context. I mean we are all born naked - it’s so weird to read someone say that the form we are born in is indesent and worse imagery than violence. I just can’t fathom that logic. Sorry :-/

Not only is nudity not automatically sexual, sex is not automatically (or even remotely) evil. It's good and wholesome.

> 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).

And random acts of violence in even light comedy shows that shun everything sexual. Really grates me when they're celebrated instead of prosecuted for an assault.

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.

Something to note: Reddit is rated M and Instagram is rated T for teen. What was Artstation rated as?

> Instagram is rated T for teen

Because people in barely any clothing are never sexually suggestive? Ah, sorry, the word is gratifying.

The users can at least sideload it. Unlike appstore.

That is if you find the .apk from a source you trust, and this is not a simple trick.

F-droid is generally trustworthy, and has put a lot of effort into this.

Fdroid is the only 3rd party source of APKs I trust.

If putting it on the main company side is good enough for threema and whatsapp I think it will be good enough for Artstation.

I love that they call out Google's BS. Especially the AI that simply doesn't work.

But what do you see when you type "sexy naked woman" into Google Image Search?

Let's hope that this story reaches someone at that company who can actually do something about it, as it seems as if the organization has grown so large that only a few higher managers can affect things.

They better take down every camera app and internet browser app.

I can picture a future android release scanning the galleries on phones and deleting photos that violate Googles ToS.

I can see this being driven by some combination of moral panic over teen sexting and FOSTA.

Or the creepy version: photo app "oversight" that automatically notifies someone else (parent, abusive controlling partner) if nudity is detected in a camera photo.

If I was the parent of a teenager I would pay good to have this.

If I was your teenage child, I would hate you. The greatest gift my parents gave me was their trust.

Hmm looks to me that besides Google spying on us, it's even more dangerous that the only two platforms for mobile apps are censored by people with Disney morals. Or American puritan morals, whatever you call them.

There are tons of people now whose only internet device is a censored cell phone... looks like we need a third option that is not based in the US.

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

I didn't downvote you, but I think with better tone and a bit more detail, you could have made a well-received comment out of this thought.

They're making a good point about the comparison to the Reddit app. Their app is harmless.

I advise Google stop pissing off both conservatives and liberals, or antitrust action will rain down pretty easily.

I wonder why the other app showing identical content didn’t get banned, maybe it is a bigger revenue earner for Google?

And yes, there is far more of this on Insta.

Don’t be evil, we have decided some art is evil, so we have removed it so you don’t have the temptation to be evil.

-Google

HN title should contain NSFW tag.

lol... the article is lost on you isn't it?

They are crazy at Google. They banned my game TrumpTweetTrumps, because they said it was pornographic. It contained a mini-game called 'Make Ivanka Come', the objective of that mini game was to ring a bell and make Ivanka come to the desk, so her father can get his daughters advise on making policy. Just a comment on the nepotism seen in the current US government, nothing pornographic. Apple are even worse though, they censored like half of the game's content on the AppStore, including an actual tweet from Trump. A tweet he sent out on an app he downloaded from the AppStore, i.e. Twitter. And that is accessible through an app promoted in their AppStore, i.e. Twitter. Grab-a-pussy mini-game was also banned and many more, I think on AppStore like half of the 8 mini-games in the App had to be removed or completely changed. I could go on complaining about this forever, but I can't be asked to type it all up again, there's so many messages being sent back and forth between me and Apple employees on their stupid resolution centre. To sum up, fk Google and Apple, your thoughtless policies are not applied consistently (basically if you profit from an app, anything is allowed for that app) and they have a bad impact on society as a whole. Satire can have powerful impacts on people and drive them to do good things. Satire is essential!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com