Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App

[The-Real-Deal82]

All apps that allow users to access porn be it Reddit, Twitter, whatever will be required to implement age verification from July in the UK. Rather than the easiily bypassable message 'Are you over 18', there will be measures via banking, mobile contract info where sites will be legally be obliged to confirm whether the user wanting to access porn is old enough. Those that don't, will be blocked by ISP's. It is a good measure I think as there is no doubt children can access porn a lot easier than when I was a child. Long gone are the days of finding a grubby magazine under a hedge at the back of the school field lol. Now its an easy tap away on any smartphone or device. Parental restrictions don't protect against apps that aren't primarily designed for porn, but contain it.

 

[laptech]

I just thought, any AltStore employee that has failed a pay review should try the companies own tactics against them. A performance review is always part of a pay review therefore if an employee passed the performance review the employee could then say their pay review has been approved. I have no doubt AltStore would then jump up and say to the employee no they are wrong, the passed the performance review but failed on something else. The employee could then go 'hold on, Hot Tube app passed one of it's checks but failed on one of the others but you are saying the app was approved, why is that different to my pay review situation, it passed one of it checks and thus the pay review was approved'.

I would like to see AltStore try and get out of that one

 

[Anaxarxes]

What crazy stuff?
Are you saying(or implying) that iOS is NOT Apple’s property?
First we settle this point then I’ll come to your silly analogy.

When you buy a phone, you’re also purchasing the software that comes with it—meaning it’s your property.

Apple may own the intellectual property rights to iOS, but that doesn’t give them unlimited control, especially when it comes to content restrictions. Today, it’s porn—but what happens if they decide to block other types of content? Imagine a media company with controversial (but legal) reporting or a service provider that competes with Apple’s own offerings.

Once you accept content restrictions, you’re essentially handing over control to a private company, allowing them to dictate what is and isn’t accessible.

 

[Anaxarxes]

The “walled garden” refers to the entire device ecosystem being completely closed. If there are official alternative stores not managed by Apple, then it’s officially no longer a walled garden. Apple’s App Store is just another app store in an open ecosystem.

I fully agree.

If Apple allows alternative app stores, which may or may not permit content that Apple bans from its own App Store, then Apple has every right to enforce those restrictions within its ecosystem. They can justify it in whatever way aligns with their brand identity, and I fully support that.

However, if they block alternative app stores and continue to restrict certain content, that’s not just brand control—that’s censorship.

 

[Anaxarxes]

What do you mean by “should”? Do you mean legally or morally? Or you simply wish it was that way? Wishing is of course valid, but should a business be legally or morally obligated to sell something they don’t want to sell in their store simply because some consumers would like it in their store? Doesn’t that impose on the business owner’s rights?

"Should"—as in, why on earth would you trust a for-profit company to decide what you can and can't do on your own device? (Except when it comes to legal vs. illegal content—where, of course, they must ensure their devices comply with the law.)

All I’m asking is for Apple to stop blocking content solely based on its nature—that decision should be left to the consumer. At the same time, Apple should provide guardians of minors with the tools to control and limit what their children can access. If the content is illegal, then absolutely, they should block it. But otherwise, it’s not their call to make.

 

[laptech]

In one of my posts I provided links to Apples app review guidelines and in the guide lines it shows 5 steps of the review process and step one is 'Safety' and under that section it's states pornography is not allowed. That is all fine and dandy for Apple's own app store because it is their store and they can pick and chose who they want in their store but it's a different kettle of fish when it comes to an alternative app store that they do not own. Apple cannot apply ALL of the steps in the review process against alternative app stores because they do not own those stores. If they try and prevent what apps go on a EU alternative app store Apple are going to be facing legal trouble because they would not be allowed to do that.

 

[surferfb]

"Should"—as in, why on earth would you trust a for-profit company to decide what you can and can't do on your own device? (Except when it comes to legal vs. illegal content—where, of course, they must ensure their devices comply with the law.)

For the 500th time Apple doesn’t decide what you can and can’t do. You can jailbreak and sideload porn apps to your hearts content. Apple just isn’t obligated to make it easy for you by hosting pornography or changing its business model to let others use its IP without paying them for it.

All I’m asking is for Apple to stop blocking content solely based on its nature—that decision should be left to the consumer. At the same time, Apple should provide guardians of minors with the tools to control and limit what their children can access. If the content is illegal, then absolutely, they should block it. But otherwise, it’s not their call to make.

It’s Apple IP and they should be allowed to do with it what they want. If you don’t like it, buy a device from a manufacturer/platform that doesn’t do so.

 

[laptech]

Apple have the right to control what goes on in it's own app store.

Apple do not have the right to control what goes on in someone else's app store.

 

[BlackSheepAz]

If the content is illegal, then absolutely, they should block it. But otherwise, it’s not their call to make.

But otherwise, it’s not their call to make.

So whose call it would be about what’s allowed on App Store and what’s not.

Or on every such issue Apple should call a referendum and iOS users would cast their vote. 😉😂😉

 

[upthetoffees]

Epic Games (not very epic games) is always part of the problem. Get rid of it. No big loss.

 

[Anaxarxes]

So whose call it would be about what’s allowed on App Store and what’s not.

Or on every such issue Apple should call a referendum and iOS users would cast their vote. 😉😂😉

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly recognizes the right to access information:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

While I understand that the First Amendment applies only to government restrictions, it’s concerning that a private company can impose such restrictions—especially given its market power and influence.

The issue isn’t about holding a referendum for every App Store decision. It’s about ensuring that a walled garden doesn’t completely block access to legal content if there are no alternative ways to access it within the platform (like in iOS’s case in the EU).

If Apple allows alternative app stores where such content can exist, they’re free to impose whatever restrictions they want within their own store. But if they block both their store and any alternative means to access certain content, that’s effectively censorship—and that’s where the problem lies.

 

[surferfb]

The issue isn’t about holding a referendum for every App Store decision. It’s about ensuring that a walled garden doesn’t completely block access to legal content if there are no alternative ways to access it within the platform (like in iOS’s case in the EU).

But Apple DOES NOT completely block access to legal content. There are plenty of alternative ways to access it within the platform. Safari, web apps, jailbroken apps, etc. They are just saying "we don't want to support an app that's sole intent and purpose is providing pornography". Hell, they allow the Onion browser on iOS, which provides access to a whole host of illegal content.

Again, they aren't blocking you from doing anything - they're just not making it easy for you. Which is their right, because iOS is their property.

 

[BlackSheepAz]

But otherwise, it’s not their call to make.

You wrote the whole novel but didn’t respond to the direct question that was asked in the start of the post. Nice dodging.
I’ll ask again.

So whose call it would be about what’s allowed on App Store and what’s not.

I can suggest some possibilities for you.

a) a government entity
b) Apple
c) majority vote of iOS users
d) United Nation’s General Assembly
e) a cocktail of above four

 

[turbineseaplane]

Maybe dont give your child a smartphone. Problem solved. People think everyone else is supposed to be a parent for their child. Parents need to di their own parenting. An iPhone is not a portable babysitter.

Thank you!
People need to take responsibility for themselves and their own kids

Apple is not here to be the moral police and protect everyone from everything

 

[I7guy]

Thank you!
People need to take responsibility for themselves and their own kids

Apple is not here to be the moral police and protect everyone from everything

There is nothing wrong with Apple being the moral police. If one disagrees with their stance on various matters, buy a product which works better for you.

 

[Expos of 1969]

There is nothing wrong with Apple being the moral police. If one disagrees with their stance on various matters, buy a product which works better for you.

Wow .... what a disturbing statement. A very slippery slope which I want no part of.

 

[turbineseaplane]

There is nothing wrong with Apple being the moral police. If one disagrees with their stance on various matters, buy a product which works better for you.

Sir, you're describing a dystopia (corporations deciding what is "ok" for people)

 

[surferfb]

Wow .... what a disturbing statement. A very slippery slope which I want no part of.

If you don't like Apple's approach to what apps they allow on their platform, then the solution is to not buy Apple's products, not force them open against their will.

Sir, you're describing a dystopia (corporations deciding what is "ok" for people)

That's a bit much, don't you think? Apple isn't deciding what's ok for people, just saying they don't want anything to do with selling/promoting certain things. Is Walmart a dystopia because they don't sell Hustler? My local market a dystopia because they don't sell booze? Of course not - they know I can go other places to get that stuff - just like Apple knows you can go other places to get porn.

 

[turbineseaplane]

That's a bit much, don't you think?

I do not -- it starts small and expands
The entire premise of a corporation dictating content policies on my own device is a bad concept

It's just a few steps to mandatory content screening in the Safari App, perhaps at the behest of a rogue government

It's why we didn't want Apple even STARTING down the CSAM route

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Don't people use Safari already, an Apple application? This statement is ridiculous.

I'm sure if the powers that be had their way they'd remove safari under the guise of safety and security. The internet is a dangerous place after all.

 

[I7guy]

Sir, you're describing a dystopia (corporations deciding what is "ok" for people)

Corporations do that anyway. Apple has been doing that since 2007. What I’m describing is nothing new and has been taking place for years.

 

[I7guy]

Wow .... what a disturbing statement. A very slippery slope which I want no part of.

Then don’t be a part of it. This is not new news. Apple has been doing this since the App Store inception.

It’s just that it took a poster 18 years to realize it.

 

[maxoakland]

You think the risk to children is acceptable then. Got it. Because thats what Apple said, and you think that’s pathetic.

You’re using think of the children to justify bad actions. That’s classic moral panic behavior and it’s absurd

If you really want to think of the children, how about we think of the African children who are forced to mine the rare earth metals Apple uses on their products? Or the children whose parents live in Foxconn factories and work 18 hour days in monstrous conditions?

Or maybe you really don’t care about children after all

 

[turbineseaplane]

how about we think of the African children who are forced to mine the rare earth metals Apple uses on their products?

Not "those children"


Moral panic behavior usually is chock-full of hypocrisy

 

[Expos of 1969]

Then don’t be a part of it. This is not new news. Apple has been doing this since the App Store inception.

It’s just that it took a poster 18 years to realize it.

Apple choices are one thing but the shocking thing is that you publicly stated that there is nothing wrong with a corporation being the moral police. Hopefully there are not millions more whom share your view.