12 ms·

Pointing to a technical distinction that makes no real difference to a user's experience is just geek-wanking. Whether from a 3rd-party server or from Apple it

by jfager 16y ago

Pointing to a technical distinction that makes no real difference to a user's experience is just geek-wanking. Whether from a 3rd-party server or from Apple itself, if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting pissed, and if there's any company in the world that's going to be aware of this, it's Apple. They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls are sufficient for apps that can display 3rd-party-server content, and because they are, it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers that passes through the same age warning and parental controls.

ErrantX 16y ago
I think we are talking past each other.. As far as I can see it Apple consider the two things discrete issues. They slap an age 17 warning on apps which give access to adult material. Plus content containing "pornography" on the App store is censored because they do not wish to distribute that content. Again; I see no ambiguity there. They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls are sufficient control for 3rd-party-server content Fin in the sense they host the apps, sure. Fine in the sense they approve of that whole idea? Probably not. But how do you practically censor those apps (on their policy) without hindering the web experience for others. I guess they accept the trade off :) but are they fine with it? Who knows. it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers. I don't buy that argument, indeed you even make the counter point. if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting pissed Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous.
- jfager 16y ago
  Again; I see no ambiguity there. I never said the policy was ambiguous, I said it was nonsensical. Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous. My point was that a pissed-off parent doesn't care where the content came from, and that Apple, if anyone, is smart enough to realize this. Simple logic: 1. 3rd party content will piss people off as much as hosted. 2. Apple perceives scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for 3rd party content. 3. Therefore, Apple ought to perceive scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for hosted apps. 4. But, nonsensically, they don't.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Your logic doesn't hold. It doesn't matter what age advisories they put in place the parents can directly blame them for content in the app store. This way they can legally wash their hands of it. Simple as. Your taking two seperate issues and turnig them into one.
    - jfager 16y ago
      Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that you thought they would try to censor material served by 3rd parties if they could, as that was their vision for the platform. That's hard to square with the idea that you've been talking about Apple's censorship of apps they host as some sort of minimal grounds for absolving themselves of legal responsibility. On top of that, the content that sparked this discussion is clearly legal. There's no possible way Apple would be in criminal danger from hosting it, and I'm sure a civil suit wouldn't make it very far either, especially considering the scare wall and the parental controls. I guess I should also make it clear that I'm not suggesting Apple ought to host illegal (or even borderline legal) content simply because it can be accessed through a browser. Apple doesn't make the choice about what's legal, and I just assumed it was understood that that was out of scope of the discussion.

by jfager 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

I think we are talking past each other.. As far as I can see it Apple consider the two things discrete issues. They slap an age 17 warning on apps which give access to adult material. Plus content containing "pornography" on the App store is censored because they do not wish to distribute that content. Again; I see no ambiguity there. They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls are sufficient control for 3rd-party-server content Fin in the sense they host the apps, sure. Fine in the sense they approve of that whole idea? Probably not. But how do you practically censor those apps (on their policy) without hindering the web experience for others. I guess they accept the trade off :) but are they fine with it? Who knows. it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers. I don't buy that argument, indeed you even make the counter point. if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting pissed Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous.

jfager 16y ago
Again; I see no ambiguity there. I never said the policy was ambiguous, I said it was nonsensical. Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous. My point was that a pissed-off parent doesn't care where the content came from, and that Apple, if anyone, is smart enough to realize this. Simple logic: 1. 3rd party content will piss people off as much as hosted. 2. Apple perceives scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for 3rd party content. 3. Therefore, Apple ought to perceive scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for hosted apps. 4. But, nonsensically, they don't.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Your logic doesn't hold. It doesn't matter what age advisories they put in place the parents can directly blame them for content in the app store. This way they can legally wash their hands of it. Simple as. Your taking two seperate issues and turnig them into one.
  - jfager 16y ago
    Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that you thought they would try to censor material served by 3rd parties if they could, as that was their vision for the platform. That's hard to square with the idea that you've been talking about Apple's censorship of apps they host as some sort of minimal grounds for absolving themselves of legal responsibility. On top of that, the content that sparked this discussion is clearly legal. There's no possible way Apple would be in criminal danger from hosting it, and I'm sure a civil suit wouldn't make it very far either, especially considering the scare wall and the parental controls. I guess I should also make it clear that I'm not suggesting Apple ought to host illegal (or even borderline legal) content simply because it can be accessed through a browser. Apple doesn't make the choice about what's legal, and I just assumed it was understood that that was out of scope of the discussion.