Twitter bans 'explicit sexual content' on Vine, says some forms of nudity are OK

Twitter first launched the Vine video app for iOS in January 2013, and later expanded its reach to Android and Windows Phone devices. It has since become a very popular way for both individuals and companies to release quick video clips out to the world.

As with any new form of video technology, Vine could also be used to send out content that some might consider to be pornographic. This week, Twitter announced some changes to Vine's Terms of Service that attempt to curb the use of its apps for what it deems to be "explicit sexual content." As their blog post states, Twitter doesn't actually mind the fact that there is porn on the Internet, but "we just prefer not to be the source of it" for its Vine apps.

Twitter has posted an FAQ page detailing what "explicit sexual content" means in terms of Vine. Some examples include no sex acts, no use of sex toys in sexual acts, no close ups of any aroused genitals (even if they are covered in clothing) and no art or animation that is considered sexually graphic.

While sexually provocative nudity is now banned on Vine, Twitter says that other forms of the nude human body are fine to show on their apps. That includes showing naked people in a "documentary context" such as a clip of protesters who are not wearing clothes. Artistic nudes, like some might see in an art class, can be shown on Vine, as can clips like a mother breastfeeding her child. Finally, the new Vine rules still allows for sexually suggestive dancing clips, if the person is clothed.

People who are found to violate these new Vine rules could be suspended from using the service, and may be permanently banned if such behavior continues.

Source: Vine blog | Image via Twitter

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Phone 8.1 will support up to 20 notifications per app in Action Center

Next Story

Newsweek claims it found the creator of Bitcoin, but its subject denies involvement

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Define "Art". Acting on a stage is "artistic", but if you move the stage to a bedroom its not? Nudity in a classroom where someone is going to paint you or mold you from clay is art, but recording you isn't?

I am a bit confused. If clothing is removed and you are in front of an audience whether its in school or on tv or in a movie, it's porn.

I mean porn is used to sell cars, its used to sell makeup, clothes and almost everything you can name....even food.

All of a sudden these web sites want to have morals?

Twitter doesn't actually mind the fact that there is porn on the Internet, but "we just prefer not to be the source of it" for its Vine apps.

That's understandable.

Ignoring my giggling at "aroused genitals," it seems too ambiguous to me. How do you class artistic nudity? Is that nudity that doesn't arouse you? Everyone is interested in different things, what arouses one person may be a turn off for others...

Nick H. said,
How do you class artistic nudity? Is that nudity that doesn't arouse you? Everyone is interested in different things, what arouses one person may be a turn off for others...

I think that's a case of "I know it when I see it". It's not so much about whether something arouses you, but whether the creator clearly meant for it to be (primarily) arousing, as is the case in pornography, regardless of whether you *actually* find it arousing or not.

A good example of something that wouldn't be allowed probably would be sick disgusting stuff. It's easy to make the difference between sick stuff and artistic or harmless nudity....

Nick H. said,
Ignoring my giggling at "aroused genitals," it seems too ambiguous to me. How do you class artistic nudity? Is that nudity that doesn't arouse you? Everyone is interested in different things, what arouses one person may be a turn off for others...

Artistic is black and white