Writing for AllThingsD, Mike Isaac and John Paczkowski posit that Twitter was forced to change the rating on their Vine app after the recent porn saga.
This is what Mike Isaac and John Paczkowski stated in their post – “Nudged by Apple, Twitter’s Porn Saga Ends in a Raw Deal for Vine”:
[quote] But as we argued last week, Vine doesn’t have a porn problem per se — it has a porn discovery problem. That gnarly porno found on Vine was all too easily surfaced in the app, due in part to the nature of the service itself. Search a hashtag keyword for sex, penis or what have you, and you’ll be taken straight to the hardcore stuff. That’s not as easy to find in, say, YouTube, which has a more mature engine for filtering out objectionable content. Or even Tumblr (though Tumblr is also rated 17+ in the App Store).[/quote]
It’s funny when someone highlights a problem and then inadvertently post a solution to the said problem.
Mike Isaac and John Paczkowski pointed out in their piece that Google has demonstrated with their YouTube App, that if a robust filtering system is in place, your App can have a lower rating!
So.. there is your answer. Twiter just needs to find a way to restrict easy access to porngraphic materials in their App too. Simple!
Even John Gruber was left perplexed by the reasoning of these two gentlemen in this case.
[quote] I don’t understand how Apple is being prudish or giving Vine a “raw deal” here. If pornographic content is easy to find on Vine — and Isaac and Paczkowski agree that it is — how is 17+ not the appropriate rating? If Apple removed Vine from the App Store, pending some sort of de-porn-ification on Vine’s back end (no pun intended), I could see that being called a “raw deal”, or prudishness/censorship on Apple’s part.
An adult rating for adult content. How is that not exactly how it should be?[/quote]