5 ms·

Agreed; but isn't this shooting them in the foot in the same way Tumblr did? I wonder why they did this instead of adding stronger filters / controls to separat

Agreed; but isn't this shooting them in the foot in the same way Tumblr did? I wonder why they did this instead of adding stronger filters / controls to separate the populations

larrik 7y ago
I'm under the impression that this is a far smaller slice of imgur than it was for tumblr.
OzzyB 7y ago
Because all roads lead to Apple Store's TOS and their anti-adult content stance. Sure they could apply stronger filters but unless they police it well they suffer the prospect of being banned like Tumblr etc. Besides, it's not easy implementing a scalable content filter without user support and if users aren't cooperating then it's probably easier and cheaper to nix the idea completely.
- tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
  Scratch anti-adult and substitute pro-family. Perspective matters, and that's the approach Apple takes.
  - xsmasher 7y ago
    That should be read anti-adult-content, not anti-adult.
    - tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
      If "ABC Family" channel didn't want to show any content that would come off as "lewd" or "adult" would you call them wanting to maintain a family friendly atmosphere, or anti-adult-content?
  - jdnenej 7y ago
    I sure do love foreign megacorps shoving their "pro family values" on me when I don't have a family. Guess some CEO knows better than I do what I should be doing.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    How does adult content hurt families? Over here in the EU we get graphic sex scenes on government funded TV channels in the middle of the day, society has not collapsed (yet?).
  - derefr 7y ago
    That might be true if the app was rated for all audiences; but most "shows you arbitrary Internet content" apps, including Tumblr, Facebook, and even alternative web browsers, end up rated 18+. It should only be adults using it; Apple's "pro-family" content controls should ensure that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
vanderZwan 7y ago
They're not removing the NSFW content but making it effectively unlisted, bit of a different situation I'd say

Agreed; but isn't this shooting them in the foot in the same way Tumblr did? I wonder why they did this instead of adding stronger filters / controls to separate the populations

larrik 7y ago

I'm under the impression that this is a far smaller slice of imgur than it was for tumblr.

OzzyB 7y ago

Because all roads lead to Apple Store's TOS and their anti-adult content stance. Sure they could apply stronger filters but unless they police it well they suffer the prospect of being banned like Tumblr etc. Besides, it's not easy implementing a scalable content filter without user support and if users aren't cooperating then it's probably easier and cheaper to nix the idea completely.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
Scratch anti-adult and substitute pro-family. Perspective matters, and that's the approach Apple takes.
- xsmasher 7y ago
  That should be read anti-adult-content, not anti-adult.
  - tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
    If "ABC Family" channel didn't want to show any content that would come off as "lewd" or "adult" would you call them wanting to maintain a family friendly atmosphere, or anti-adult-content?
- jdnenej 7y ago
  I sure do love foreign megacorps shoving their "pro family values" on me when I don't have a family. Guess some CEO knows better than I do what I should be doing.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  How does adult content hurt families? Over here in the EU we get graphic sex scenes on government funded TV channels in the middle of the day, society has not collapsed (yet?).
- derefr 7y ago
  That might be true if the app was rated for all audiences; but most "shows you arbitrary Internet content" apps, including Tumblr, Facebook, and even alternative web browsers, end up rated 18+. It should only be adults using it; Apple's "pro-family" content controls should ensure that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

vanderZwan 7y ago

They're not removing the NSFW content but making it effectively unlisted, bit of a different situation I'd say