> “I clicked on the video b/c I thought the warning was a joke,” wrote in the comments. I’m furious I had to see something like this.”
Really? And somehow it is Vine's fault you saw porn while clicking on a video named "Dildoplay" with the tags "nsfw" "porn" "nsfwvine". I can't feel sorry for you. Yes it is too bad that this showed up in the first place but lets not start with the pitchforks. This was a simple mistake that was completely avoidable by users who have 2 eyes and can read.
Like I said it shouldn't have been there in the first place but lots not act like you accidentally clicked on a video that has all the correct warning of it's content. "Officer, I didn't know that when I pulled the pin out of that grenade that it would explode, I thought it was a joke".
That's what you get when you spend tons of time teaching users that all content is curated and that they can click everywhere safely.
I might have had the same reaction, to be honest. When I see a video called "Hot XXX girl" with an alluring thumbnail on Youtube, the first thing that comes to my mind isn't "this is porn", it's "this is a cheap way to get views to an uninteresting video". And I routinely get "You must be 18 or older to see this" warnings for videos/photos with as little as a hint of a naked breast.
Well, Vine is rated 12+ in App Store. “Infrequent/Mild Sexual Content or Nudity”. I'm not sure what are ramifications if an application violates assigned ratings.
On a second thought, “Infrequent/Mild” is vague enough: does slash mean “or”?
Does it make sense that an app. with the sole purpose of sharing user-submitted videos would somehow be devoid of any questionable/suggestive content? Isn't it kinda Apple's fault for insisting that apps conform to their age guidelines, when those apps involve user-submitted videos? I mean...who lets their 12- to 17-year-old use an app like Vine? Do they honestly believe nothing bad might come of that?
"Officer, I didn't know that when I pulled the pin out of that grenade that it would explode, I thought it was a joke".
More like, "Officer, I didn't know that the stuffed toy I bought for my 12 year old child was in fact a grenade, and that picking up the toy would result in it exploding".
There are two issues here. The first is that the app is rated 12+, and shouldn't be showing adult content. The second is that it's showing adult content unprompted- the most recent posts certainly don't have the warning attached, so people are getting porn sent to them without asking for it.
I don't think it's worth getting hung up on the warnings, since just looking at any hashtag you would guess has porn/nudity shows that most of it has no warning at all.
The comment that it was "Human error" was also interesting, perhaps someone made it a favorite while logged in as the Editor? Of course the interesting bit for me was that the system had a porn screen in place, it "knew" it was porny since it required you to tap it to view it, so why does the program / tool that makes it "Editor's Choice" not automatically reject as an error an attempt to promote a porny video to that spot?
Google Video (the service that existed at Google before and to some extent after :-) they bought YouTube) early on used an algorithm for picking the top videos to put on the page based on views/ratings/comments etc but that early algorithm had built in from the start a check for things being NSFW and thus preventing them from ever making the list.
Seems like a brain fart. Either that or a poor attempt at getting publicity for the service. That latter would be really lame if Apple pulls the App based on the commotion.
I bet it automatically rejects porn for featured spots now. Features like that tend not to get put in until somebody screws up. It's too easy to think, "nobody will ever do this in the first place."
why does the program / tool that makes it "Editor's Choice" not automatically reject as an error an attempt to promote a porny video to that spot
This was the second mistake. There should be business rules in place to prevent this. Most likely they rushed the app to production without considering this case.
On that point, Sexual Offences Act 2003 S12(1)(a) appears to be badly drafted as it's not clear that the sexual "gratification" has to be the defendants, it could the second party's. In which case if you sent it someone and they got off on it but that someone was a minor it would be an offence.
Read another way even if someone didn't get off on it but the material is pornographic (ie of the sort people use for sexual gratification) then it would still count.
If Hypothetical Bob gets sexual pleasure from sending videos to many people; and knows that he's sending video to minors, then Bob has committed an offence.
It's a list of external dependencies of the linked VentureBeat page. I've been running RequestPolicy for a while now, but have never seen a website being this frivolous with sharing their hit information.
The Better Advertising Project, with the basic idea to profile end-user ad-blocking activity on the Internet and to resell this data to advertisers. This might be OK with some people, but for me, personally, it's just too close for comfort.
Why do you block ads? It's a leading question, and the answer is likely to be that they are annoying.
But why are they annoying? If you drill down a bit, then it's not because they blink, but because someone somewhere thought that you should see their ad. Because they made a decision for you, without asking, and it's not a decision that you would've made yourself. Similarly, any sort of reporting, anonymous or not, falls into the same domain - someone somewhere decided that you should be OK with it. I don't appreciate this. It's not what they do, it's the fact that they thought they could do it. It's ethics. I don't have a problem with someone accidentally farting in a room, but I would have a problem if someone had a choice of walking out, thought it over and then proceeded to do it anyway.
It might be OK with others, but it's not OK with me. HTH.
One of the perils of being a startup, and instead of growing organically and having these embarrassing moments early in front of a small number of hardcore users (who will use you no matter what, and forgive you no matter what you do), you get pushed out by a behemoth like Twitter.
While its embarrassing for Vine to have porn pop up in the top of users feed's , and the societal norms say it's a "bad thing" for the company; I can't but help feel that in actual fact this would attract far more users.
I don't think so in this case...even if we assume that porn is a major driver in tech (I think iOS's whitewashed dominance is a clear counter argument), six-second porn is likely not satisfying enough for porn aficionados to stick around with. Even if there are some great clips, it's still seems like a lot of work to hit refresh-next-whatever (I don't know, I don't have the app), nevermind wading through all the unsatisfying clips.
Meanwhile, the many users who do not want to see porn, either at all, or at least during daytime hours, will have a negative user experience.
I think you underestimate people here. They've been hitting refresh and waiting for static images to load for a long time. Vinepeek makes allows you to just sit back and watch, and with the addition of tag searching, I'd imagine that sitting through this content isn't a chore at all considering the lengths people will go to find new material to begin with.
Except that there already are thousands of sites for the discerning porn connoisseur that don't distract with cats or comic clips, and are unconnected with personal Twitter profiles people usually use for safe-for-work activities.
It's reasonable to expect Twitter to take steps to make the porn much harder to find in the near future too.
It's going to make it easier for Facebook to justify blocking the app too, assuming they want to, which might slow adoption through that channel.
I'm genuinely confused as to what the incentive is for the people posting the porn. They certainly aren't profiting from it- do they just have a vested interest in seeing Vine fail?
It's an advertisement for viewers to "see more" -- there's lots of free porn out there, and most of it is used to funnel a percentage of the viewers to paid subscription sites where other / more similar content exists. Conversion rates are not as low as you think.
Expanding on rexreed's point, these are people peddling a vice with the characteristic of inhibiting the frontal cortex and tapping into the ancient hindbrain of the human brain. They can win statistically just by exposing you. Of course the human forebrain is not "helpless" against this assault, but it's still a game they can win on the margins. (I find it an effective defense to be offended that they would reach for that; this is also a good cognitive defense against "won't somebody please think of the children?", which comes up a lot because it works, it really does shut down rational thought if you don't see it coming and block it.)
Same reason they spam this in email, and only some of the spam is "correctly" labeled.
I honestly feel that most users would not be offended by this, but might feel embarrassed if this showed while they're showing the app to their parents or a non-close friend. However, I'm sure that Apple (or their censors) take things like this somewhat seriously, which is silly because this is the Internet! There are going to be offensive things every now and then; that's what happens when you democratize the creation of content. I wish Apple would take a more hands-off approach and just throw-up some disclaimer that "online interactions are not rated by Apple" and leave it at that.
Or just make age ratings opt-in. By default all apps would be "unrated" and thus prohibited when parental controls are enabled. Apps that can guarantee no adult content can request a rating review.
"I like using Apple products with my children because I know their aggressive moderation will help keep inappropriate material out of the hands of my children".
Chances are Apple's policy is intentional and while tech communities of 20-25 y/o white single upper-middle class males tend to call for open access and no censorship, not all demographics of Apple users necessarily agree...
Really? And somehow it is Vine's fault you saw porn while clicking on a video named "Dildoplay" with the tags "nsfw" "porn" "nsfwvine". I can't feel sorry for you. Yes it is too bad that this showed up in the first place but lets not start with the pitchforks. This was a simple mistake that was completely avoidable by users who have 2 eyes and can read.
Like I said it shouldn't have been there in the first place but lots not act like you accidentally clicked on a video that has all the correct warning of it's content. "Officer, I didn't know that when I pulled the pin out of that grenade that it would explode, I thought it was a joke".