4 ms·

I mean the opposite—not that they should censor/moderate their other stores, but why are they hypocritical (edit: or inconsistent, if you prefer) in saying that

I mean the opposite—not that they should censor/moderate their other stores, but why are they hypocritical (edit: or inconsistent, if you prefer) in saying that certain content is harmful when consumed as an app, but not as a book or movie that they are happy to sell to you?

Bud 6y ago
That's not hypocritical; it's surprising you can't see that. An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way. Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies. It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).
- rgovostes 6y ago
  > An app is software that can be harmful to your device. I'm only discussing moderation for content, rather than moderation for security, privacy, stability, etc. > actively censor books (which isn't really feasible) I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that? Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary. See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS20111108 https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS...
qppo 6y ago
I think the simplest explanation is that they don't have automated review processes for media like they do for software and Apple isn't a single person making decisions about what they sell on every app all the time. That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.

Bud 6y ago

That's not hypocritical; it's surprising you can't see that. An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way. Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies. It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).

rgovostes 6y ago
> An app is software that can be harmful to your device. I'm only discussing moderation for content, rather than moderation for security, privacy, stability, etc. > actively censor books (which isn't really feasible) I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that? Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary. See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS20111108 https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS...

qppo 6y ago

I think the simplest explanation is that they don't have automated review processes for media like they do for software and Apple isn't a single person making decisions about what they sell on every app all the time. That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.