4 ms·

It is nothing more than a image-only web browser, right? How does Gizmodo's framing of the story change the facts?

• Pahalial 17y ago
  Primarily because the first sensationalist article may very well be both the way Apple found out about this app and the very reason they had to clamp down on it - if <conservative parent> sees that gizmodo headline taken up elsewhere, they could be very reasonably expected to think "oh no! Little Timmy has an iphone! He can now look at pornography!" The second article is another sensationalist piece, but this is made much worse by the fact it is feeding off the very activity it probably caused with the first. If your newspaper of choice ran a story decrying a particular building as the source of all the worst crime in the city one day, and after a police crackdown ran a piece talking about police abusing their powers or judges granting search warrants willy-nilly, would you be okay with it?
• Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  I'm not sure the app is (was) a pure image browser. The dev said: "There is currently over 100,000 pics spread between 15 categories with much much more coming soon." The "categories" thing makes no sense unless the app was able to associate specific sites/boards with certain categories ("blondes, brunettes...") somehow, either by linking to the boards directly or by detecting a "known" categorized board/subboard when the user browsed to it. Bottom line is that if there were any nudity/porn sites included in the URLs that enabled the "category" feature, the takedown was probably justified.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]