4 ms·

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/fil

by 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 :(
- aphyr 16y ago
  The hell? I explicitly stated that I make no judgement, since there isn't sufficient evidence. It's a consistent explanation, but that doesn't make it probable.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    I'd argue there is absolutely no evidence (and even some counter evidence) to suggest that homophobia came into this. I apologise for insinuating you were judging (I agree that was uncalled for) but I think it's important nowadays that homophobia is never brought into these conversations unless there is obvious influence in such a decision. It's counter productive to the whole equality battle.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this? It's consistent with their policy ... anything that many regular users find objectionable. Talking about baning apps for the good of the iOS platform is one thing, baning actual content is another. I've lived a short period of time under a totalitarian regime ... nobody was homophobic as nobody talked about it, and content censorship was done for the good of the citizens. Not a good country to live in. And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children ... they have a curios nature, and if you don't educate them properly no amount of censorship will stop them from finding / getting what they want. Hiding stuff away doesn't work ... even if it does, it's only short-term as they are going to find out from their friends anyway. Apple, you suck.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this? There appears to be nothing to suggest the fact that this is two men has anything to do with the censorship. Therefore suggesting it does derails the issue in the first place and propagates the remaining discrimination problem. There is no homophobia in this issue (at least based on the information currently available) so those bringing it in are doing so for their own purpose (and generally they are doing untold damage to their own cause EDIT: I should point out this is a cause close to my heart also). And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children... Agreed entirely.
dieterrams 16y ago
> Ah yes, implied nudity. You know, like clothes. ;) Ha, yes. Well, you know what I meant. Not to be confused with I know it when I see it. :)

by aphyr 16y ago

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 :(

aphyr 16y ago
The hell? I explicitly stated that I make no judgement, since there isn't sufficient evidence. It's a consistent explanation, but that doesn't make it probable.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I'd argue there is absolutely no evidence (and even some counter evidence) to suggest that homophobia came into this. I apologise for insinuating you were judging (I agree that was uncalled for) but I think it's important nowadays that homophobia is never brought into these conversations unless there is obvious influence in such a decision. It's counter productive to the whole equality battle.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this? It's consistent with their policy ... anything that many regular users find objectionable. Talking about baning apps for the good of the iOS platform is one thing, baning actual content is another. I've lived a short period of time under a totalitarian regime ... nobody was homophobic as nobody talked about it, and content censorship was done for the good of the citizens. Not a good country to live in. And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children ... they have a curios nature, and if you don't educate them properly no amount of censorship will stop them from finding / getting what they want. Hiding stuff away doesn't work ... even if it does, it's only short-term as they are going to find out from their friends anyway. Apple, you suck.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this? There appears to be nothing to suggest the fact that this is two men has anything to do with the censorship. Therefore suggesting it does derails the issue in the first place and propagates the remaining discrimination problem. There is no homophobia in this issue (at least based on the information currently available) so those bringing it in are doing so for their own purpose (and generally they are doing untold damage to their own cause EDIT: I should point out this is a cause close to my heart also). And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children... Agreed entirely.

dieterrams 16y ago

> Ah yes, implied nudity. You know, like clothes. ;) Ha, yes. Well, you know what I meant. Not to be confused with I know it when I see it. :)