3 ms·
That it's possible isn't the relevant bit. The fact that you can lock down all third party browsers based on rating, but have to explicitly lock down Safari se
by roc 17y ago
That it's possible isn't the relevant bit.
The fact that you can lock down all third party browsers based on rating, but have to explicitly lock down Safari separately exposes the absurdity and inconsistency of this policy.
If Apple 'rated' Safari 17+ and youtube something like 14+, and the parental controls were applied universally, their policy wouldn't be nearly so bad.
- phil 17y agoYeah, you get more granular control over the built-in apps. Why would it make the policy better or more consistent if that ability were taken away?
- roc 17y agoBecause what you call 'granularity' is intentional inconsistency. Apple is making a fairly strict policy decision (open internet == 17+). But with separated parental controls for safari and youtube, they're are exempting themselves from the downsides of this policy (equivocating Safari with apps that actually do contain vulgar, suggestive and/or violent content). If they were at least willing to eat their own dog food, one could argue that Apple doesn't feel their policy is too strict. That they don't demonstrates that even they can see that the classification system doesn't quite work.
- stepherm 17y agoI would assume the reason there are separate settings for Safari is because you can delete 3rd party apps but you can't delete safari from the phone.
- lutorm 17y agoI agree. It seems that apps that display unfiltered internet content should just inherit whatever setting the user has applied to safari. That way it's at least consistent.