Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Advertising Cellphones Microsoft

Microsoft Quickly Revises "Sexting" Ad For Kin Phone 298

theodp writes "Microsoft's Kin mobile phone project came under fire as Consumer Reports and others pointed out that a promotional video looked like an inappropriate endorsement of 'sexting,' prompting a quick edit and an apologetic tweet. 'The video,' observed Consumer Reports, 'includes a downright creepy sequence [beginning around 0:33] in which a young man is shown putting a Kin under his shirt and apparently snapping a picture of one of his naked breasts. The breast is then shown on the phone's screen, just before the guy apparently sends it to someone. Next we see the face of a young woman, seemingly the recipient, with an amused expression...'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Quickly Revises "Sexting" Ad For Kin Phone

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Uptight much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Saturday April 17, 2010 @11:43PM (#31885154) Homepage

    Yeah but me committing mass murder with a tactical nuke in FO3 is perfectly OKAY! I'll be over here, beating my head against the door frame. Maybe when I pass out and wake up, things will make sense. Or I'll be brain damaged...I think that's win-win!

  • Re:Sexting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Saturday April 17, 2010 @11:55PM (#31885208)

    I had it pretty good in class back in the day, the chicks in class just flat out showed me their junk. Who in the hell wants a picture when you can
    see it live.

  • This keeps happening (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) * on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:04AM (#31885246)

    I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.

    I am sure that if nobody complained then the ad executives would plant their own complaints in the news just to get people to talk about it. How many times do you hear news reports about people being outraged without ever saying who those people are. I imagine that it is rare to need to resort to doing their own complaints, because the people who get offended by this are so predictably vocal. And who cares if you piss them off, because the target market are young people who think sexting is OK and who would be quite happy to rebel against the prudes.

  • by jamesh ( 87723 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:29AM (#31885328)

    I'd never even heard of the 'Kin Phone' until just now... is Slashdot being assimilated into the Microsoft marketing machine?

  • Re:Fucking Puritans (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:21AM (#31885466)

    This has nothing to do with children...

    Ah, but it does. It has everything to do with children. You see, your average 12-14 yro doesn't have the capability to understand that emailing a picture of their privates to a friend is pretty much like standing on a street corner and handing the pictures out to strangers. Those pictures will never go away but might continue to exist practically forever on the net. Those pictures may come back to haunt them.

    Kids just can't understand the consequences of their actions and need guidance until they do. That's why we have laws to protect children until they reach a certain age. Makes sense to me.

  • self pedophiling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NicknamesAreStupid ( 1040118 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:02AM (#31885566)
    In some states doing something like this could be construed as "sexual relations with a minor" (i.e., yourself). Theoretically, that could land you in jail for 5-10 years and forever be labeled a pedophile.

    'Sex' once meant intercourse whereby the female could be impregnated. Now it can mean anything, including petting, phone sex, Internet sex, and sexting using SMS. Someday, it might mean alluding to sex through indirect references such as these. Eventually, it might even mean any arousal of the autonomic nervous system. You may someday get busted for having a wet dream. I am sure that will never happen until, of course, it does happen.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @04:46AM (#31885940)

    sexting with your kin? That's something only Microsoft 'Research' could have thought of.

  • Re:Uptight much? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @08:33AM (#31886484) Homepage Journal

    That rule is for Jews only, like the rule against eating milk with meat. A gentile can eat a cheeseburger, or wear cotton-poly blends, without being unrighteous.

    The milk rule has to do with a verse in Exodus listing some religious rituals Jews were commanded to perform and others that that were forbidden. One of the forbidden rituals was boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk. Aside from considerations of cruelty, 20th Century archeology discovered that the Ugarites, one of Israel's neighbors, practiced precisely such a ritual.

    The prohibition against seething a kid in its mother's milk prevented the incorporation of this foreign ritual into Jewish life. Later, when that law was no longer needed, it was reinterpreted to forbid mixing milk and meat at all, even though each was allowed separately. It was a commandment, and since there is no mechanism for repealing a divine law, the Jews had to find a way to obey it. The prohibition on mixed fibers is probably of the same nature. It probably addressed a specific threat of cultural assimilation or religious syncretism.

    The function of many of the commandments of Jewish religious law seems to be maintaining a distinct Jewish cultural identity. If the Pentateuch were still open to additions today, they'd probably add a prohibition against Jews setting up live trees in their house. To us, the intent would be clear: Jews should not let Christmas holiday practices creep into their culture. Two or three thousand years from now, long after people stop setting up Christmas trees, that prohibition might seem weird and arbitrary.

    In an ironic way, it is the arbitrariness of such a law that justifies it. The entire point is to prevent the Jewish people from assimilating into the cultures that surround them. Laws against killing or bearing false witness are sensible laws for anyone, but were all Jews to follow only such laws, it would be doubtful that Jews would maintain their distinct cultural identity for thousands of years more.

  • Re:Uptight much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @11:57AM (#31887410)
    There was also a holy book all about sex that a bishop got rid of, destroying every copy; The Gospel of Eve was destroyed in 3rd century ad by Epiphanius of Salamis for encouraging various sex acts.
  • Re:LOLwut? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:28PM (#31887640)

    I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them)

    Either automatic weapons in the hands of citizenry are okay or they are not. Which one is it?

    I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

  • Re:Fucking Puritans (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:46PM (#31888318) Journal

    Actually the frightening thing is that anybody would think that large numbers of other people would recognize an image of genitals as being theirs. Face recognition it isn't. Yet. Ahem.

  • Newsflash (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyclomedia ( 882859 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @04:21AM (#31893652) Homepage Journal

    Everyone* on the planet has breasts and nipples. The two types of trouser monster are distributed half and half*. Everyone* who's undergone puberty has sex, usually for fun. One day everyone's naked pictures and sex stories will be on the internet and no one will care anymore, it might put a bunch of celebrity papparazi out of business because no one's career will be ruined because of naked videos or pictures because it wont be a big deal. Eventually.

    * Approximate values.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.