4 ms·

Surprising, even by Google's standards. DDLC is a violent game but not much more. What app store rule exactly is it breaking?

the_pwner224 6mo ago
"Violent"? Do you consider news reporting to be violent too? This isn't remotely in the league of all the shooter games you can find on the store.
- stratos123 6mo ago
  Gore in shooters is culturally treated as much less "violent" than e.g. graphic scenes of suicide. You could make an argument that it shouldn't be, but it is.
  - hackable_sand 6mo ago
    Most shooters are an abstraction, i.e. you're not really shooting anyone. You are, but you're not. Most of them are in the same league of violence that an aggressive debate would be in.
    - bawolff 6mo ago
      Which is really sad. Video games with dehumanized violence: a-ok. Video games that show you the actual consequences of violence, well that is a bridge too far. Perhaps soiety would be better if it was reversed.
- xboxnolifes 6mo ago
  When journalism shows death or gore, they do often call it violent imagery. So... yes? Violent imagery is imagery of violence. The news report is not itself violence, but it contains violence.
kcb 6mo ago
There are countless games on the store that let you kill endless hordes of humans in detail...
j2kun 6mo ago
Self-harm (especially when depicting minors) has special standards. The recent court losses on child safety for Meta and YouTube probably led to this.
- AlienRobot 6mo ago
  Completely absurd. If it's not safe for children just slap an age rating on it. I don't like this trend of every technology assuming I'm a child that needs to be protected from the world while simultaneously assuming I'm an adult with infinite disposable income that must be shown ads to all the time. This is insincere. Children need to be "protected" only when it's convenient and allows the platform to exercise unchecked control. Nobody is protecting children from ads because that would be inconvenient.
  - j2kun 6mo ago
    To be clear, I'm not advocating for the behavior here, just explaining that, for most tech companies, the risk of liability is a huge motivator. Liability for poor use of ad targeting would induce similar behavior (and I think that'd be a win for everyone involved)
- p-t 6mo ago
  i feel like this is going to be really dangerous tbh, especially if it starts blocking informational content

the_pwner224 6mo ago

"Violent"? Do you consider news reporting to be violent too? This isn't remotely in the league of all the shooter games you can find on the store.

stratos123 6mo ago
Gore in shooters is culturally treated as much less "violent" than e.g. graphic scenes of suicide. You could make an argument that it shouldn't be, but it is.
- hackable_sand 6mo ago
  Most shooters are an abstraction, i.e. you're not really shooting anyone. You are, but you're not. Most of them are in the same league of violence that an aggressive debate would be in.
  - bawolff 6mo ago
    Which is really sad. Video games with dehumanized violence: a-ok. Video games that show you the actual consequences of violence, well that is a bridge too far. Perhaps soiety would be better if it was reversed.
xboxnolifes 6mo ago
When journalism shows death or gore, they do often call it violent imagery. So... yes? Violent imagery is imagery of violence. The news report is not itself violence, but it contains violence.

kcb 6mo ago

There are countless games on the store that let you kill endless hordes of humans in detail...

j2kun 6mo ago

Self-harm (especially when depicting minors) has special standards. The recent court losses on child safety for Meta and YouTube probably led to this.

AlienRobot 6mo ago
Completely absurd. If it's not safe for children just slap an age rating on it. I don't like this trend of every technology assuming I'm a child that needs to be protected from the world while simultaneously assuming I'm an adult with infinite disposable income that must be shown ads to all the time. This is insincere. Children need to be "protected" only when it's convenient and allows the platform to exercise unchecked control. Nobody is protecting children from ads because that would be inconvenient.
- j2kun 6mo ago
  To be clear, I'm not advocating for the behavior here, just explaining that, for most tech companies, the risk of liability is a huge motivator. Liability for poor use of ad targeting would induce similar behavior (and I think that'd be a win for everyone involved)
p-t 6mo ago
i feel like this is going to be really dangerous tbh, especially if it starts blocking informational content