Who?
No sex please, we're Twit-ish. Vine bans non-educational nudity
A six second sexual encounter is bound to disappoint and annoy. So it's little wonder that the teeny-weeny video service Vine has called an end to them. The Twitter-owned video service has decided to weed out filthy content that is "not a good fit for our community". This basically means any sort of nudity or sexual content …
-
-
-
Friday 7th March 2014 18:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "we just prefer not to be the source of it."
Their service, their rules, if they don't want to host porn I don't see it's anybody else's business but theirs. I don't have a problem with a service like this saying, we don't want to host porn for people, but we're happy to have images which are nude and have an educational purpose.
Contrast that with Google's: "We have a zero tolerance policy to nudity on you tube", but are happy to host non-educational images of people being murdered or executed.
-
Saturday 8th March 2014 01:10 GMT Captain Save-a-ho
Re: "we just prefer not to be the source of it."
In a free economy (which doesn't exist anywhere, including the Internet), Vine is perfectly within their rights to define their business as they see fit. They also must suffer the consequences if the majority of their users go back to using YouPorn, PornHub, or XHamster instead.
In other news, the other 6.99999999 billion people on the planet didn't even notice.
-
Sunday 9th March 2014 14:03 GMT Don Jefe
Re: "we just prefer not to be the source of it."
The entire concept of 'free markets' ends the moment the market is defined. I honestly believe only crooks, politicians and idiots (sometimes one person is all three :) can speak publicly about the virtues of free markets with a straight face. If everyone accepted the realities of commerce, as opposed to just making shit up I believe things would function more smoothly.
At any rate, Vine's policy is well within reason and law as the service is private property. Property law and market boundaries are two distinctly seperate things. Simply because something is there does not grant anyone not the owner(s) the right to do anything with/to the something. It's no absolutely no different than spray painting graffiti on the side of someone else's building when there's a sign that explicitly tells you not to spray paint the side of a building. I don't understand what people are so bent up about.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-