7 ms·

The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.apple.com/us/app/500px/id471965292?mt

by gte910h 14y ago

The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.apple.com/us/app/500px/id471965292?mt=8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.... I think trying to paint Apple as bad in this case is pretty crappy, as it's very clear what the different ratings mean and 500px didn't follow the VERY CLEAR list of what each thing means. http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-app-rating-system http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-ap... True nudity only belongs in 17+ in their system. 500px put it available for 4+.

jjcm 14y ago
If it was just a matter of being in the wrong rating category, it seems like it would make more sense for apple to just re-categorize it. Any insight into why they pulled the app instead of doing that?
- 9oliYQjP 14y ago
  IANAL but I'd imagine it is due to legal implications for Apple setting the rating. If Apple categorizes the app, it means they're essentially vouching for the app's capabilities. They need the actual seller to set the rating. That way if there's an issue, Apple isn't on the hook legally. They can wipe their hands and say "we just sell it, we don't vouch for the quality/integrity of the product".
- gte910h 14y ago
  Apple doesn't change ratings, or to my knowledge, any metadata about any of the apps.
FireBeyond 14y ago
4+, but only shows nudity if you go to the website in a browser, create an account, verify your age, then specify that you want to be able to see "mature" images. Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+, and deny a whole raft of people the ability to use it, on the chance that they might do the above to "get around" the Apple rating system. It's always insightful to see the hoops that are jumped through to defend Apple.
- gte910h 14y ago
  >Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+ Yes, then parents can give the device to children, turn on whatever restrictions based on those ratings, and have it work, even if the kid is trying to get around it by doing all those things. This is not only intended to defeat 5 year olds, but 14 year olds. If 500px would prefer to turn that switch off for everyone, then 4+ is possibly the correct rating. If they do not, then the correct rating is 17+. The only people it prohibits from getting the app, by setting to 17+ are those whom have another person setting 17+ as inappropriate for that user. You do know the web browser and pretty much any apps can be turned off in restrictions right? You can give the thing to a 4 year old, and the only thing you have to worry about is "will they break it" once you've locked it down correctly. 500px mislabeled their app, and as a result were allowing industrious young people who were otherwise restricted to find stuff like http://500px.com/photo/10228807 http://500px.com/photo/10228807 (Which I don't view as harmful PERSONALLY, but LOTS of people would find that inappropriate for a kid).
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    What's the rating on the iOS web browser? 17+? Presumably your hypothetical 4 and 14 year olds would have access to that too? Although I notice that several web browsers in iTunes have 17+ ratings too, so at least they're consistent, maybe. According to https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-browser/id331012646?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-bro... You must be at least 17 years old to download this app. Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes Frequent/Intense Cartoon or Fantasy Violence Frequent/Intense Horror/Fear Themes Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References update: did you actually look at the picture that you linked? I doubt a 14 year old is going to be harmed by it...
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Any app that allows general web access must be given a 17+ rating. This includes any browser, as well as any app that happens to include an integrated browser for another purpose (e.g. a Twitter client that shows links in-app). As for children having access to the built-in web browser, certainly not if their parents don't think full web access is appropriate for them.
tsycho 14y ago
By that logic, Safari should be 17+ only and should not be installed by default unless the user claims/proves that they are 17+. It's much easier to access nudity/porn via Safari. 500px's app required much more work, and contained "artistic nudity" not porn.
- cstejerean 14y ago
  Safari can be disabled under parental controls for precisely this reason.
- jmreid 14y ago
  You're thinking of it backwards. The device settings and parental controls are set BEFORE you hand the device to a child.
- gte910h 14y ago
  Restrictions are off by default. It's up to the person with money to enable them before giving the device to the person, and periodically confirming they're still there.
tghw 14y ago
Our society has this totally backwards. First, to find nudity, you have to go out of your way on 500px. Is it there? Sure. But is a 4 year-old going to run across it without concerted effort? No. And if they do find it, will it really have a negative impact on their development? Highly unlikely. Meanwhile, you can buy an app that will let you watch UFC fights[1]. It is rated 9+. In case you're wondering whether UFC would be appropriate for 9 year-olds, I refer you to a Google Image Search for the St. Pierre vs. Condit fight from a month or two ago (warning: graphic and bloody) http://bit.ly/VSwUAJ http://bit.ly/VSwUAJ Like I said, we have this totally backwards. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ufc/id534568162 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ufc/id534568162
- gte910h 14y ago
  I agree about the values of many Americans. I am not one of the people who who thinks boobs are particularly harmful. That said, MANY PEOPLE who have dollars apple wants have those values. So they make a system so their devices get turned into something no more "dangerous" than a Wii/DS, and children get iPads and iPodTouches without parents worrying about corrupting their kids with nudity (again, their values, not mine)

by gte910h 14y ago

jjcm 14y ago

If it was just a matter of being in the wrong rating category, it seems like it would make more sense for apple to just re-categorize it. Any insight into why they pulled the app instead of doing that?

9oliYQjP 14y ago
IANAL but I'd imagine it is due to legal implications for Apple setting the rating. If Apple categorizes the app, it means they're essentially vouching for the app's capabilities. They need the actual seller to set the rating. That way if there's an issue, Apple isn't on the hook legally. They can wipe their hands and say "we just sell it, we don't vouch for the quality/integrity of the product".
gte910h 14y ago
Apple doesn't change ratings, or to my knowledge, any metadata about any of the apps.

FireBeyond 14y ago

4+, but only shows nudity if you go to the website in a browser, create an account, verify your age, then specify that you want to be able to see "mature" images. Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+, and deny a whole raft of people the ability to use it, on the chance that they might do the above to "get around" the Apple rating system. It's always insightful to see the hoops that are jumped through to defend Apple.

gte910h 14y ago
>Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+ Yes, then parents can give the device to children, turn on whatever restrictions based on those ratings, and have it work, even if the kid is trying to get around it by doing all those things. This is not only intended to defeat 5 year olds, but 14 year olds. If 500px would prefer to turn that switch off for everyone, then 4+ is possibly the correct rating. If they do not, then the correct rating is 17+. The only people it prohibits from getting the app, by setting to 17+ are those whom have another person setting 17+ as inappropriate for that user. You do know the web browser and pretty much any apps can be turned off in restrictions right? You can give the thing to a 4 year old, and the only thing you have to worry about is "will they break it" once you've locked it down correctly. 500px mislabeled their app, and as a result were allowing industrious young people who were otherwise restricted to find stuff like http://500px.com/photo/10228807 http://500px.com/photo/10228807 (Which I don't view as harmful PERSONALLY, but LOTS of people would find that inappropriate for a kid).
- anthonyb 14y ago
  What's the rating on the iOS web browser? 17+? Presumably your hypothetical 4 and 14 year olds would have access to that too? Although I notice that several web browsers in iTunes have 17+ ratings too, so at least they're consistent, maybe. According to https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-browser/id331012646?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-bro... You must be at least 17 years old to download this app. Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes Frequent/Intense Cartoon or Fantasy Violence Frequent/Intense Horror/Fear Themes Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References update: did you actually look at the picture that you linked? I doubt a 14 year old is going to be harmed by it...
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Any app that allows general web access must be given a 17+ rating. This includes any browser, as well as any app that happens to include an integrated browser for another purpose (e.g. a Twitter client that shows links in-app). As for children having access to the built-in web browser, certainly not if their parents don't think full web access is appropriate for them.

tsycho 14y ago

By that logic, Safari should be 17+ only and should not be installed by default unless the user claims/proves that they are 17+. It's much easier to access nudity/porn via Safari. 500px's app required much more work, and contained "artistic nudity" not porn.

cstejerean 14y ago
Safari can be disabled under parental controls for precisely this reason.
jmreid 14y ago
You're thinking of it backwards. The device settings and parental controls are set BEFORE you hand the device to a child.
gte910h 14y ago
Restrictions are off by default. It's up to the person with money to enable them before giving the device to the person, and periodically confirming they're still there.

tghw 14y ago

Our society has this totally backwards. First, to find nudity, you have to go out of your way on 500px. Is it there? Sure. But is a 4 year-old going to run across it without concerted effort? No. And if they do find it, will it really have a negative impact on their development? Highly unlikely. Meanwhile, you can buy an app that will let you watch UFC fights[1]. It is rated 9+. In case you're wondering whether UFC would be appropriate for 9 year-olds, I refer you to a Google Image Search for the St. Pierre vs. Condit fight from a month or two ago (warning: graphic and bloody) http://bit.ly/VSwUAJ http://bit.ly/VSwUAJ Like I said, we have this totally backwards. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ufc/id534568162 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ufc/id534568162

gte910h 14y ago
I agree about the values of many Americans. I am not one of the people who who thinks boobs are particularly harmful. That said, MANY PEOPLE who have dollars apple wants have those values. So they make a system so their devices get turned into something no more "dangerous" than a Wii/DS, and children get iPads and iPodTouches without parents worrying about corrupting their kids with nudity (again, their values, not mine)