5 ms·

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

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.

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.