4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYour 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 agoEarlier 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.