5 ms·

Given that there is no frontal nudity in any of the panels shown, and many of the censored scenes have no nudity whatsoever, could you further explain your case

by aphyr 16y ago

Given that there is no frontal nudity in any of the panels shown, and many of the censored scenes have no nudity whatsoever, could you further explain your case that this censorship is "about no-nudity"? You can see more explicit nudity than this in most daily papers, or heck, walking down the street during a pride parade.

axod 16y ago
It's not just about nudity, it's about social acceptability. Apple seem to be on some content policing crusade which is ill judged IMHO, but it's fairly obvious why this is censored.
dieterrams 16y ago
I'm not defending this policy or suggesting that it makes any sense given how easy it is to find nudity (or sexual acts, etc.) elsewhere. It doesn't. But the writer has simply failed to present any compelling evidence that this censorship was about homosexuality. Given that there's an established policy against nudity and not homosexuality, it makes more sense to consider the former as the determinative criteria, doesn't it? Apps get rejected merely for showing women in bathing suits. There is one panel in the comic which does not contain any explicit or implied nudity that's censored, but which is still obviously sexual. I've no idea if blacking this panel out was Apple's idea and is consistent with other policies, or if the creators just decided to play it safe. And Apple's content regulation policies have never been consistently enforced, subject to individual reviewers' interpretations of what's kosher. (A particularly good reason why they should drop this process.) Apple deserves much legitimate criticism over content regulation, but this article isn't an example of that.
- MartinCron 16y ago
  Here's your example: http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stupid-editorial-censorship http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stu... Scroll down to see the example from the Apple-Approved Kick-ass comic, which did feature nudity as well as (hetero) sexual acts.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Nope. If you'd read the second page of the OP, you'd realize this was exactly the comic that Apple did not directly review.
    - MartinCron 16y ago
      You're right. Sorry. I stand corrected.
- aphyr 16y ago
  Ah yes, implied nudity. You know, like clothes. ;) Here's the iPhone dev agreement: http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf The only pertinent section I can find is: "Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users." Which, in matter of fact, does not prohibit nudity, but rather anything Apple thinks its users might be offended by. Nudity is in fact allowed. We can surmise this from the approval of "Fabulous nude paintings puzzle", and dozens more like it. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzle/id354279965?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzl... Stranger still, "iGirl uncut", where you can "Blow her, shake her, touch her and more", must not be obscene, objectionable, or pornographic. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8 I agree with you: the panels are sexual. But Apple's policy clearly allows them to ban whatever the hell they feel like. When the enforcement of that policy is wildly inconsistent, it looks a hell of a lot like unjust content regulation to me. As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised. This is the sort of reverse thinking that makes no sense. You've made a judgement there about the person who made this decision; in my mind there is no data on whether the reviewer has homophobic motives, but there is certainly data to show you've decided he/she probably is. This is bad anti-think. I'd argue the fact that the kiss is not blacked out is pretty solid evidence this was not motivated by homophobia. EDIT: it was unfair to suggest Aphyr made a judgement. What I really meant is that bringing the suggestion of homophobia into the matter, with no grounds (which is what the article does) is counter-productive and damaging. I shouldn't have jumped on Aphyr to make that point :(

by aphyr 16y ago

axod 16y ago

It's not just about nudity, it's about social acceptability. Apple seem to be on some content policing crusade which is ill judged IMHO, but it's fairly obvious why this is censored.

dieterrams 16y ago

I'm not defending this policy or suggesting that it makes any sense given how easy it is to find nudity (or sexual acts, etc.) elsewhere. It doesn't. But the writer has simply failed to present any compelling evidence that this censorship was about homosexuality. Given that there's an established policy against nudity and not homosexuality, it makes more sense to consider the former as the determinative criteria, doesn't it? Apps get rejected merely for showing women in bathing suits. There is one panel in the comic which does not contain any explicit or implied nudity that's censored, but which is still obviously sexual. I've no idea if blacking this panel out was Apple's idea and is consistent with other policies, or if the creators just decided to play it safe. And Apple's content regulation policies have never been consistently enforced, subject to individual reviewers' interpretations of what's kosher. (A particularly good reason why they should drop this process.) Apple deserves much legitimate criticism over content regulation, but this article isn't an example of that.

MartinCron 16y ago
Here's your example: http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stupid-editorial-censorship http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stu... Scroll down to see the example from the Apple-Approved Kick-ass comic, which did feature nudity as well as (hetero) sexual acts.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  Nope. If you'd read the second page of the OP, you'd realize this was exactly the comic that Apple did not directly review.
  - MartinCron 16y ago
    You're right. Sorry. I stand corrected.
aphyr 16y ago
Ah yes, implied nudity. You know, like clothes. ;) Here's the iPhone dev agreement: http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf The only pertinent section I can find is: "Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users." Which, in matter of fact, does not prohibit nudity, but rather anything Apple thinks its users might be offended by. Nudity is in fact allowed. We can surmise this from the approval of "Fabulous nude paintings puzzle", and dozens more like it. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzle/id354279965?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzl... Stranger still, "iGirl uncut", where you can "Blow her, shake her, touch her and more", must not be obscene, objectionable, or pornographic. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8 I agree with you: the panels are sexual. But Apple's policy clearly allows them to ban whatever the hell they feel like. When the enforcement of that policy is wildly inconsistent, it looks a hell of a lot like unjust content regulation to me. As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised. This is the sort of reverse thinking that makes no sense. You've made a judgement there about the person who made this decision; in my mind there is no data on whether the reviewer has homophobic motives, but there is certainly data to show you've decided he/she probably is. This is bad anti-think. I'd argue the fact that the kiss is not blacked out is pretty solid evidence this was not motivated by homophobia. EDIT: it was unfair to suggest Aphyr made a judgement. What I really meant is that bringing the suggestion of homophobia into the matter, with no grounds (which is what the article does) is counter-productive and damaging. I shouldn't have jumped on Aphyr to make that point :(