4 ms·

> During the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, Apple lawyers even cited itch.io as the kind of adult-friendly gaming platform that it wouldn't be comfortable allowing via

> During the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, Apple lawyers even cited itch.io as the kind of adult-friendly gaming platform that it wouldn't be comfortable allowing via its more family-friendly App Store. Serious question: why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, but it becomes a huge deal when other large companies do it?

karahime 1y ago
My best guess on this is that it's as simple as 1) most people are not Apple users (harder to reach critical mass online), 2) and most Apple users are aware of other ways to access things if that's what they want, while the ones who don't want that buy Apple in part because of the more walled garden aspects. This is purely speculative though, so it would be interesting to see surveys or other perspectives.
imzadi 1y ago
The difference here is that itch.io and steam's hands were forced by their payment processors. This isn't like Apple deciding what Apple will and won't sell. This is Mastercard decided what Steam and Itch.io will and won't sell.
Root_Denied 1y ago
I think it's a fair question. While I disagree with Apple's stance, I think there's a valid argument that Apple is running a platform that you can choose to utilize or engage with or not - similar to how Apple could refuse to serve or trespass someone from one of their physical stores, the platform is self contained and clearly owned by a single entity. The fundamental difference with a payment processor is that they control financial transactions between entities that have no relation to Visa/MC. They facilitate money being moved quickly and efficiently between accounts for goods or services, and they have no business inserting themselves into the content of the transaction. I think it's also worth pointing out that the main reason I think that it's inappropriate for payment processors to decide on what content can be paid for with their systems is that it's a closed ecosystem - you can't just set up your own payment processor (though some governments are attempting to do so already), so there's a real risk of a small number of companies controlling what can and can't be bought digitally - that includes not just content related to sex, but also potentially content that is violent, or political. If we're going to have a very limited group of payment processors, then they need to be completely neutral - or we need to make it possible (or at least easier) for alternative payment processors to spin up operations and work within the global financial network. Considering the technical and regulatory difficulty of that second option I think the former is the better path.
ranger_danger 1y ago
Not sure if this is part of their reasoning but I can think of a few scenarios that seem plausible to me at least: - being blamed for facilitating, and/or having to monitor for, illegal content like reverge porn and CSAM - reputation damage from being associated with content they (and others) morally object to - history of increased risk of chargebacks and fraud from adult sites - adult actors have explicitly petitioned sites and processors to ban unverified content uploads, and they would rather ban everything than play police
dilap 1y ago
It's a lot more disruptive, and psychologically much more annoying, to lose something, than to never have it at all. I do think it's a shame that Apple controls the App Store so tightly -- it's not just NSFW stuff that's banned, it's all kinds of stuff for all sorts of reasons, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blocks-us-drone-strike-app#:~:text=Apple%20blocks%20'objectionable'%20app%20that%20reports%20deaths%20from%20US%20drone%20strikes,-This%20article%20is&text=Software%20giant%20Apple%20has%20blocked,according%20to%20the%20program's%20designer. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blo... If the web were invented today, it'd be strangled in the crib, since Apple would never approve the browser app.
creer 1y ago
> why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, It shouldn't be ignored, and perhaps Apple should revise this position in light of all the attacks already on the Apple app store. Except that perhaps instead this is actually earning them some points among some of these attackers, who knows? I would say the reason is Apple app store was irrelevant initially - from a market share point of view. And they had this policy from the start. Now Apple is very relevant in market share and should change that policy to reflect that.

karahime 1y ago

My best guess on this is that it's as simple as 1) most people are not Apple users (harder to reach critical mass online), 2) and most Apple users are aware of other ways to access things if that's what they want, while the ones who don't want that buy Apple in part because of the more walled garden aspects. This is purely speculative though, so it would be interesting to see surveys or other perspectives.

imzadi 1y ago

The difference here is that itch.io and steam's hands were forced by their payment processors. This isn't like Apple deciding what Apple will and won't sell. This is Mastercard decided what Steam and Itch.io will and won't sell.

Root_Denied 1y ago

I think it's a fair question. While I disagree with Apple's stance, I think there's a valid argument that Apple is running a platform that you can choose to utilize or engage with or not - similar to how Apple could refuse to serve or trespass someone from one of their physical stores, the platform is self contained and clearly owned by a single entity. The fundamental difference with a payment processor is that they control financial transactions between entities that have no relation to Visa/MC. They facilitate money being moved quickly and efficiently between accounts for goods or services, and they have no business inserting themselves into the content of the transaction. I think it's also worth pointing out that the main reason I think that it's inappropriate for payment processors to decide on what content can be paid for with their systems is that it's a closed ecosystem - you can't just set up your own payment processor (though some governments are attempting to do so already), so there's a real risk of a small number of companies controlling what can and can't be bought digitally - that includes not just content related to sex, but also potentially content that is violent, or political. If we're going to have a very limited group of payment processors, then they need to be completely neutral - or we need to make it possible (or at least easier) for alternative payment processors to spin up operations and work within the global financial network. Considering the technical and regulatory difficulty of that second option I think the former is the better path.

ranger_danger 1y ago

Not sure if this is part of their reasoning but I can think of a few scenarios that seem plausible to me at least: - being blamed for facilitating, and/or having to monitor for, illegal content like reverge porn and CSAM - reputation damage from being associated with content they (and others) morally object to - history of increased risk of chargebacks and fraud from adult sites - adult actors have explicitly petitioned sites and processors to ban unverified content uploads, and they would rather ban everything than play police

dilap 1y ago

It's a lot more disruptive, and psychologically much more annoying, to lose something, than to never have it at all. I do think it's a shame that Apple controls the App Store so tightly -- it's not just NSFW stuff that's banned, it's all kinds of stuff for all sorts of reasons, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blocks-us-drone-strike-app#:~:text=Apple%20blocks%20'objectionable'%20app%20that%20reports%20deaths%20from%20US%20drone%20strikes,-This%20article%20is&text=Software%20giant%20Apple%20has%20blocked,according%20to%20the%20program's%20designer. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blo... If the web were invented today, it'd be strangled in the crib, since Apple would never approve the browser app.

creer 1y ago

> why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, It shouldn't be ignored, and perhaps Apple should revise this position in light of all the attacks already on the Apple app store. Except that perhaps instead this is actually earning them some points among some of these attackers, who knows? I would say the reason is Apple app store was irrelevant initially - from a market share point of view. And they had this policy from the start. Now Apple is very relevant in market share and should change that policy to reflect that.