6 ms·

While I understand the criticism - this is not the point of Apple. Unsolicited nudity is usually used for harassment. I assume that also in Europe sending unsol

While I understand the criticism - this is not the point of Apple. Unsolicited nudity is usually used for harassment. I assume that also in Europe sending unsolicited nude photos to adult and kids isn't okay.

hericium 4y ago
Apple's new favorite reasoning for invigilation is kids' protection. Ban all knifes because someone can use a knife to harm a child. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable in some way or another. But would they choose to give other reasons for their actions, there would definitely be more backslash about their snooping. People in general know that protecting the innocent is a good thing and Apple exploits this to push their agendas under the guise of children protection. Again.
- knighthack 4y ago
  Relevant trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildr...
- olliej 4y ago
  … you mean Apple provides a feature in its parental controls to allow parents to limit nudity being sent to their kids devices? Like yes: the explicit purpose of parental controls is to allow parents to place limits on what their kids can do on a device, and in America specifically protect them from the concept of people existing under their clothes. But I fail to see what Apple is doing here that you find offensive? Did you read the article and description of how the feature is enabled and works or did you just decide “Apple is evil and is choosing what I get to see”?
- dereg 4y ago
  Do you realize the irony of saying that Americans are overprotectionists, using Europe as a comparison, when the EU may be the most sprawling, onerous, and protectionist regulatory state to exist on this planet?
  - geysersam 4y ago
    From the other perspective: democratically elected representatives banning harmful chemicals used in children's toys vs. private companies reading and censoring your conversations. Not all "protections" are the same.
    - dereg 4y ago
      I'm less trying to compare the two areas line by line and more pointing to the absurdity of ascribing Apple's actions to a national prudishness.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      I have to assume you're intentionally misrepresenting what is happening here. Why would you do this? Do you not think your point is strong enough to stand on its own without lying about it? Everything happens on-device, with no use of Apple servers, and this is clearly called out in the release above. And beyond that, this is a feature that is only enabled by the parent, who society already accepts has the power to censor what their child views. What you said would be like saying that the GNU foundation is reading your conversations when you type something into emacs.
      - geysersam 4y ago
        Missunderstood that part. I'd edit and correct the comment, but due to the edit time limit I cannot.
        googlryas 4y ago
        Fair enough - I apologize for accusing you of something inappropriately.
- bambax 4y ago
  Of course. "Think of the children" is the apex of hypocrisy. If the US (and American tech companies) cared at all about children, or human life in general, they would do something about guns. As a European, seeing videos on YT glorifying guns and gun culture is extremely shocking. I would let my kids run around naked all day, anytime, rather than letting them watch one video showing people firing an AR-15 like it's the most normal thing in the world.
  - branon 4y ago
    Your European country exists as it is today because brave citizens worked with or near guns to defend your ideals. Gun education and gun safety is not necessarily glorification. YouTube is a cesspit though and I can totally see some overcaffeinated "content creator" churning out videos that misrepresent and pervert the otherwise sane tenets of firearms education. But - there's the "think of the children" hypocrisy again. Think of the children, and "do something about" (i.e. ban) guns. Or ban videos about guns? Kids can look at genitals all day but heaven forbid they watch a video about a gun? Or play video games that feature guns? Where's it end? We've exchanged one instance of hypocrisy for another. No thanks!
  - nullfield 4y ago
    Free humans own weapons or at minimum aren’t barred from doing so, and can legally defend themselves from legitimate threats when civil authorities are unable or unwilling to intervene in the moment. Culture is a different thing to discuss, sure, and glorifying violence is bad - which is what some of those videos do, though not all of them. Still, we see countries like the Czech Republic where firearms may be carried concealed, nearly anywhere, with licensing on a shall-issue basis: there are relatively reasonable conditions not far from US-based shall-issue permit requirements (for the US states still even requiring a permit), as well, and CZ doesn’t seem to have issues. Education about gun safety, and just general personal responsibility, used to be a thing in the US but the “education system” here fails us these days.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- googlryas 4y ago
  Can you tell me even one possibility for how Apple will profit off of letting parents choose to not allow children to send or receive nude photos? Besides for increasing the chances parents choose Apple devices for their kids, which is really something you could say about any feature.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nullfield 4y ago
  Apple is one of the few companies - with more money than God, or at least the Vatican - that I’m willing to assume might do something on “principle” rather than “to maximize profits”. The fact that their principles might happen to be at-least-mostly-revenue-neutral is another discussion, though, I suppose.
miki123211 4y ago
If this feature were designed to prevent unsolicited nudity, it would be far easier to turn off. It probably shouldn't trigger for people in your contacts at all, and it should have an override button for everybody else. This is not the case, and the feature is even triggered when sending messages with such photos, so this is clearly not its intended purpose.
- drawfloat 4y ago
  Isn't the feature opt-in?
  - DrudgeCorporate 4y ago
    According to what I read in the article, yes.
- GlumWoodpecker 4y ago
  Start off by reading the linked article. The feature is opt-in, and has to be manually turned on. It only triggers on child accounts where this is enabled. It is designed to protect children from being taken advantage of by stopping both incoming and outgoing nudity.
  - miki123211 4y ago
    No idea how one-child sending nude pics to another child can be described as taking advantage of anyone. Who's the perpetrator here? And while the feature is opt-in, it's opt-in by parents, and has no granular, per-message overrides when the child knows what they're doing. While a general dickpic content warning is a good idea, there should be a "see anyway" button.
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      I'm sorry, I'm no happier about this feature than you seem to be, but... > there should be a "see anyway" button If you read the article and look at the pictures, "View photo..." is right underneath the blurred photo. It may not be called "see anyway", and it may not be a button per se, but it has the exact same effect.
antman 4y ago
In Europe sending unsolicited pictures of guns would be a far far greater problem
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  Don’t give them ideas
omniglottal 4y ago
It's reasonable to consider that the majority of well-received (wanted) nude photos may also have been unsolicited. Pay closer attention to the innocents swept up by generalizations. Laws which make a just action treated the same as an unjust action are foolish and, themselves, unjust. Anyone who uses "usually" to justify an enforcement which applies always is being disingenuous and careless with rhetoric which revolves around possibility and treats it as hyperbole. There are profoundly important reasons why people are to be treated in a certain, naively trusting manner until proven guilty. Sending an unsolicited picture of a concerning rash on your kid's butt to his doctor should not be intercepted by Apple.

hericium 4y ago

Apple's new favorite reasoning for invigilation is kids' protection. Ban all knifes because someone can use a knife to harm a child. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable in some way or another. But would they choose to give other reasons for their actions, there would definitely be more backslash about their snooping. People in general know that protecting the innocent is a good thing and Apple exploits this to push their agendas under the guise of children protection. Again.

knighthack 4y ago
Relevant trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildr...
olliej 4y ago
… you mean Apple provides a feature in its parental controls to allow parents to limit nudity being sent to their kids devices? Like yes: the explicit purpose of parental controls is to allow parents to place limits on what their kids can do on a device, and in America specifically protect them from the concept of people existing under their clothes. But I fail to see what Apple is doing here that you find offensive? Did you read the article and description of how the feature is enabled and works or did you just decide “Apple is evil and is choosing what I get to see”?
dereg 4y ago
Do you realize the irony of saying that Americans are overprotectionists, using Europe as a comparison, when the EU may be the most sprawling, onerous, and protectionist regulatory state to exist on this planet?
- geysersam 4y ago
  From the other perspective: democratically elected representatives banning harmful chemicals used in children's toys vs. private companies reading and censoring your conversations. Not all "protections" are the same.
  - dereg 4y ago
    I'm less trying to compare the two areas line by line and more pointing to the absurdity of ascribing Apple's actions to a national prudishness.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I have to assume you're intentionally misrepresenting what is happening here. Why would you do this? Do you not think your point is strong enough to stand on its own without lying about it? Everything happens on-device, with no use of Apple servers, and this is clearly called out in the release above. And beyond that, this is a feature that is only enabled by the parent, who society already accepts has the power to censor what their child views. What you said would be like saying that the GNU foundation is reading your conversations when you type something into emacs.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Missunderstood that part. I'd edit and correct the comment, but due to the edit time limit I cannot.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        Fair enough - I apologize for accusing you of something inappropriately.
bambax 4y ago
Of course. "Think of the children" is the apex of hypocrisy. If the US (and American tech companies) cared at all about children, or human life in general, they would do something about guns. As a European, seeing videos on YT glorifying guns and gun culture is extremely shocking. I would let my kids run around naked all day, anytime, rather than letting them watch one video showing people firing an AR-15 like it's the most normal thing in the world.
- branon 4y ago
  Your European country exists as it is today because brave citizens worked with or near guns to defend your ideals. Gun education and gun safety is not necessarily glorification. YouTube is a cesspit though and I can totally see some overcaffeinated "content creator" churning out videos that misrepresent and pervert the otherwise sane tenets of firearms education. But - there's the "think of the children" hypocrisy again. Think of the children, and "do something about" (i.e. ban) guns. Or ban videos about guns? Kids can look at genitals all day but heaven forbid they watch a video about a gun? Or play video games that feature guns? Where's it end? We've exchanged one instance of hypocrisy for another. No thanks!
- nullfield 4y ago
  Free humans own weapons or at minimum aren’t barred from doing so, and can legally defend themselves from legitimate threats when civil authorities are unable or unwilling to intervene in the moment. Culture is a different thing to discuss, sure, and glorifying violence is bad - which is what some of those videos do, though not all of them. Still, we see countries like the Czech Republic where firearms may be carried concealed, nearly anywhere, with licensing on a shall-issue basis: there are relatively reasonable conditions not far from US-based shall-issue permit requirements (for the US states still even requiring a permit), as well, and CZ doesn’t seem to have issues. Education about gun safety, and just general personal responsibility, used to be a thing in the US but the “education system” here fails us these days.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
googlryas 4y ago
Can you tell me even one possibility for how Apple will profit off of letting parents choose to not allow children to send or receive nude photos? Besides for increasing the chances parents choose Apple devices for their kids, which is really something you could say about any feature.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nullfield 4y ago
Apple is one of the few companies - with more money than God, or at least the Vatican - that I’m willing to assume might do something on “principle” rather than “to maximize profits”. The fact that their principles might happen to be at-least-mostly-revenue-neutral is another discussion, though, I suppose.

miki123211 4y ago

If this feature were designed to prevent unsolicited nudity, it would be far easier to turn off. It probably shouldn't trigger for people in your contacts at all, and it should have an override button for everybody else. This is not the case, and the feature is even triggered when sending messages with such photos, so this is clearly not its intended purpose.

drawfloat 4y ago
Isn't the feature opt-in?
- DrudgeCorporate 4y ago
  According to what I read in the article, yes.
GlumWoodpecker 4y ago
Start off by reading the linked article. The feature is opt-in, and has to be manually turned on. It only triggers on child accounts where this is enabled. It is designed to protect children from being taken advantage of by stopping both incoming and outgoing nudity.
- miki123211 4y ago
  No idea how one-child sending nude pics to another child can be described as taking advantage of anyone. Who's the perpetrator here? And while the feature is opt-in, it's opt-in by parents, and has no granular, per-message overrides when the child knows what they're doing. While a general dickpic content warning is a good idea, there should be a "see anyway" button.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm no happier about this feature than you seem to be, but... > there should be a "see anyway" button If you read the article and look at the pictures, "View photo..." is right underneath the blurred photo. It may not be called "see anyway", and it may not be a button per se, but it has the exact same effect.

antman 4y ago

In Europe sending unsolicited pictures of guns would be a far far greater problem

heavenlyblue 4y ago
Don’t give them ideas

omniglottal 4y ago

It's reasonable to consider that the majority of well-received (wanted) nude photos may also have been unsolicited. Pay closer attention to the innocents swept up by generalizations. Laws which make a just action treated the same as an unjust action are foolish and, themselves, unjust. Anyone who uses "usually" to justify an enforcement which applies always is being disingenuous and careless with rhetoric which revolves around possibility and treats it as hyperbole. There are profoundly important reasons why people are to be treated in a certain, naively trusting manner until proven guilty. Sending an unsolicited picture of a concerning rash on your kid's butt to his doctor should not be intercepted by Apple.