[flagged]
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No it's depending on the intention of the person wearing those same breasts. This is very clearly non-consentual presentation of an individual in a sexy pose. There's an argument to be had about female nudity, but this is separate from getting visually stripped by a computer without your consent.
There will always be things that are considered inappropriate in particular contexts.
.. for this user.
The same result may delight other users.
But even that aside, I hope you realize how absolutely insane this line of thinking truly is. It doesn't matter if the user is "delighted", if it were to generate virtual child pornography I'd hope you would consider this to be inappropriate for the lottery website.
Yes it is. Context includes the user.
But let's be honest, semantics debates are a waste of time. The ultimate source of truth for "appropriateness", a wishy-washy concept to begin with, is the public court of opinion, for which the opinion is pretty obvious based on:
1. This news story existing
2. The developers promptly pulling the app even just out of caution
3. The top responses either agreeing or not disagreeing with the inappropriateness
And yes, just to preempt it, of course given enough people and time you'll find someone that will take issue with anything, but this isn't a "gray area" case, this is a dark shade of black area case.
Was this an appropriate behavior for the application? No. It's just that simple.
I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court.
> 2. The developers promptly pulling the app even just out of caution
Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline".
It's pretty hard for me to conceptualize that you are still trying to argue "actually, maybe it's appropriate for the silly lottery marketing website to output unsolicited porn without warning because one user might enjoy that" by literally nitpicking semantics in the idea that the average person is not going to find this appropriate.
A journalist and a source can indeed make for some bunk stories. It's still a point for this being a legitimate concern. Another obvious point towards that is the fact that it made it to the HN frontpage and now we're discussing it.
> Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline".
March 30th: the incident in question
April 2nd: gone
Two business days is quite prompt to decide to entirely shut something down over a single incident that isn't even confirmed to have happened actually, yeah.
Very strange. It's almost as if the settings in which humans operate require "nuance" and "complexity" and "context" to understand and can't be navigated with a flowchart.
If Yes -> Softcore Porn
If No -> Rights violation
Whether or not you believe breast-fetishism should be a thing is a different matter.