The 2016 Snapchat Ban
Snapchat is an American multimedia messaging app created by Evan Spiegel, Bobby Murphy, and Reggie Brown when they were students at Stanford University. In February 2014, the three undergraduate students founded Snap Inc., a company that develops and publishes social media applications and hardware products. Initially known as Picaboo, it was renamed to Snapchat following a rebranding in September 2011. It is based in Santa Monica, California, and has offices in Los Angeles, New York City, London, and Sydney. Snapchat's most popular feature is its camera which users can use to take photos, record videos, add text and drawings, and send them to a controlled list of recipients. These sent photographs are called "snaps" and are intended to be viewed for a limited time before they become inaccessible unless saved by the recipient. The company also owns Bitmoji, which offers emoji-like avatars; Zenly, a location sharing application; and Spectacles, sunglasses that can record video.
In October 2015, Snapchat introduced Snap Ads, advertisements within the app itself. Its ad unit allows businesses to create and submit ads that appear between stories. The ads have been successful with brands such as McDonald's, General Electric, and Nike reporting high levels of engagement. However, this success has not always been evenly distributed. On May 3, 2016, Snapchat permanently banned Hustler from running any ads or brand presence on its Discover tab, even though Playboy and Maxim were allowed limited access. The discrepancy sparked media coverage, highlighting tech companies' often opaque moderation policies. The ban stemmed from an issue regarding the definition of pornography versus erotica. In February 2018, Snapchat announced it would remove content depicting sexual acts, including genitalia, in response to criticism over sexually explicit content being available to minors. While this announcement appeared to clarify the previous policy on nudity, it did not address the reasons behind the permanent ban on Hustler.
Snap Inc.'s decision was made public after an article published in TechCrunch reported that it had removed Hustler from its platform due to an alleged violation of its community guidelines. At the time of writing, however, no official explanation for the decision has been given by the company. This lack of transparency is a common problem in the technology industry. It raises questions about how decisions are made and why certain companies are targeted over others. For example, while the decision may seem arbitrary, some argue that it could be because Snapchat wanted to avoid attracting negative attention and controversy. Other analysts have speculated that the move was motivated by pressure from advertisers who do not want their products associated with adult content. Still, others believe it was a strategic business decision meant to reduce competition in the marketplace. Regardless of the reason, the ban illustrates the power wielded by social media platforms and the implications that come with it.
The decision sparked debate among users and commentators alike, many of whom questioned why Playboy and Maxim were allowed limited access but Hustler was permanently banned. The discrepancy highlighted the double standard often present in tech companies' moderation policies. It also raised concerns about free speech and censorship, particularly when it comes to sexually explicit material. Some argued that such restrictions should only apply to content that depicts non-consensual or illegal activity, while others pointed out that consenting adults should be able to view whatever they choose. Others suggested that the ban could lead to a slippery slope where any form of sexual expression could be censored on social media. In response to this criticism, Snap Inc. stated that it had no intention of changing its policy regarding nudity but did not address the specifics of the ban.
The 2016 Snapchat Ban is an important reminder of how powerful technology companies can be and how little control individuals have over their decisions. While the company has yet to provide an official explanation for the decision, it raises questions about the future of freedom of expression on social media. As more and more platforms adopt similar policies, it remains unclear what will happen next. Will we see increased censorship or greater understanding and acceptance of diverse perspectives? Only time will tell.