Before people work themselves into self-righteous fury (too late) about how authoritarian Apple is censoring homosexuality and promoting a culture of homophobia, you need to understand that this is about no-nudity, a policy the article's writer knows full well about already, seeing as how he wrote a previous article about it and linked to it.
As davidedicillo pointed out, he attempts to work this into an anti-gay angle by pointing out how a comic book not directly reviewed by Apple (it is downloadable through a comic store app) containing more explicit heterosex was not similarly censored, which is about as airtight an analysis as you might expect from Fox News. He literally has nothing else to base his anti-homosexual conclusions on.
I do think Apple is fundamentally misguided in its attempts to regulate content, and they're only going to dig themselves into a deeper hole by doing anything beyond adopting ratings and age blockers. But unfortunately this article is a yet another example of anti-Apple hysteria fueled sensationalism.
Given that there is no frontal nudity in any of the panels shown, and many of the censored scenes have no nudity whatsoever, could you further explain your case that this censorship is "about no-nudity"? You can see more explicit nudity than this in most daily papers, or heck, walking down the street during a pride parade.
I'm not defending this policy or suggesting that it makes any sense given how easy it is to find nudity (or sexual acts, etc.) elsewhere. It doesn't. But the writer has simply failed to present any compelling evidence that this censorship was about homosexuality. Given that there's an established policy against nudity and not homosexuality, it makes more sense to consider the former as the determinative criteria, doesn't it? Apps get rejected merely for showing women in bathing suits.
There is one panel in the comic which does not contain any explicit or implied nudity that's censored, but which is still obviously sexual. I've no idea if blacking this panel out was Apple's idea and is consistent with other policies, or if the creators just decided to play it safe. And Apple's content regulation policies have never been consistently enforced, subject to individual reviewers' interpretations of what's kosher. (A particularly good reason why they should drop this process.)
Apple deserves much legitimate criticism over content regulation, but this article isn't an example of that.
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or
defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Which, in matter of fact, does not prohibit nudity, but rather anything Apple thinks its users might be offended by. Nudity is in fact allowed. We can surmise this from the approval of "Fabulous nude paintings puzzle", and dozens more like it.
I agree with you: the panels are sexual. But Apple's policy clearly allows them to ban whatever the hell they feel like. When the enforcement of that policy is wildly inconsistent, it looks a hell of a lot like unjust content regulation to me.
As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
This is the sort of reverse thinking that makes no sense.
You've made a judgement there about the person who made this decision; in my mind there is no data on whether the reviewer has homophobic motives, but there is certainly data to show you've decided he/she probably is.
This is bad anti-think.
I'd argue the fact that the kiss is not blacked out is pretty solid evidence this was not motivated by homophobia.
EDIT: it was unfair to suggest Aphyr made a judgement. What I really meant is that bringing the suggestion of homophobia into the matter, with no grounds (which is what the article does) is counter-productive and damaging. I shouldn't have jumped on Aphyr to make that point :(
The hell? I explicitly stated that I make no judgement, since there isn't sufficient evidence. It's a consistent explanation, but that doesn't make it probable.
I'd argue there is absolutely no evidence (and even some counter evidence) to suggest that homophobia came into this.
I apologise for insinuating you were judging (I agree that was uncalled for) but I think it's important nowadays that homophobia is never brought into these conversations unless there is obvious influence in such a decision.
It's counter productive to the whole equality battle.
It's consistent with their policy ... anything that many regular users find objectionable.
Talking about baning apps for the good of the iOS platform is one thing, baning actual content is another. I've lived a short period of time under a totalitarian regime ... nobody was homophobic as nobody talked about it, and content censorship was done for the good of the citizens. Not a good country to live in.
And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children ... they have a curios nature, and if you don't educate them properly no amount of censorship will stop them from finding / getting what they want. Hiding stuff away doesn't work ... even if it does, it's only short-term as they are going to find out from their friends anyway.
There appears to be nothing to suggest the fact that this is two men has anything to do with the censorship. Therefore suggesting it does derails the issue in the first place and propagates the remaining discrimination problem.
There is no homophobia in this issue (at least based on the information currently available) so those bringing it in are doing so for their own purpose (and generally they are doing untold damage to their own cause EDIT: I should point out this is a cause close to my heart also).
And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children...
According to your comments history, 100% of your posts have been about defending Apple against criticisms. I almost never check the history of users, but in your case the tone of your message was so identifiable that I did it instantly.
This is exactly why I hope, in the long term, that HTML5/6/whatever marginalizes apps. Technical and editorial control over what we read and write is just too much power to invest in any single company, however well-intentioned.
This censorship is unacceptable. Either sell the book/comic/whatever or don't, but don't insult us by selling us versions with a bunch of black censor blocks covering up half the page. I'd want my money back after realizing the book I bought was gutted by the distributor. Imagine how offensive it would be if you bought a shrink-wrapped book from a bookstore with controversial passages cut out from the pages.
The differences are that, 1) the music distributors supplying Walmart were already distributing "clean" versions for radio play, so Walmart simply chose those versions over the explicit ones, and 2) you can buy CDs from any other retailer than Walmart and get the explicit versions if you want. You can only get iPhone software from the App Store.
It's a hell of a lot more than an 'unfortunate side effect.' When 30-40% of your product's sales go through WalMart, you will toe their party line when you write and edit the content you're selling.
Any sufficiently dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. Eventually people are going to understand that.
For what it's worth, I specifically asked them if it was the kissing itself or the imagery of mens' buttocks that Apple objected to. Didn't get an answer to that question.
The message is that the sight of two men kissing is a bad thing, and that homophobia is a good thing. For allowing Apple to send that message, Steve Jobs should be ashamed of himself.
Sorry, but I entirely despise soapbox-authors like this.
This headline is really misleading. It's not just a gay kiss, it's gay nude fondling of genitals. Seems pretty reasonable to think that the homosexual element is incidental to the pornographic element in Apple's decision.
So, one is an app directly reviewed by Apple, the other has been downloaded from an another app. I'm sure if that was brought to Apple's attention they would send an email to the app owner in order to remove that comic book or censor it. I understand that Apple might not be fair or whatever, but some of the complains are really ridiculous.
To be fair to Apple, they've had same-sex couples' benefits the same as different-sex couples' since the 1970s (back when being a 'mo was a mental illness, not cool and cowboyesque like Jake Gyllenhaal).
It's a tricky business, being in the content censorship business, because the shield of common carrier status is very useful.
So because they have progressive and decent policies for the ~20k or so who work for them, we should be willing to excuse the repressive and reactionary policies they have for the millions of developers and customers who use their products?
Before we all get into a rage, is there any real evidence that they objected to semi-nude homosexual kissing and not just to semi-nude kissing in general? That would still be kind of silly but it loses some of the rage-inducing homophobia...
Go to page two of the article, there's another comic that was accepted that has implicit sex and a nipple showing.
"On a Picasa page, he posted some full pages from the original book, as well as one page from another comic book (from Kick-Ass) of a heterosexual couple. Apple apparently didn't have a problem with that image. Kick-Ass can be bought, uncensored, on iTunes through the iVerse comic reader."
I don't understand why this distinction is important. You have to click past the same "Are you 17?" scare warning to download both apps that can access external content and apps that are adult-oriented by themselves, and both can be limited with parental controls. The former can access far more pornographic material than this, and yet Apple is going out of its way to black this material out? That makes zero sense.
Simple: they are hosting the material. Im sure if there was a way to apply censorship to material obtained in other ways they would do so. That is how they view the platform.
Okay, that's how Apple sees the platform, and it's their right. It's also my right to point out how ridiculous their policy is, to complain to them about it, and to try to convince others to do the same.
If their goal is to be family-friendly, and they try to stay consistent with that goal with apps that can download external content by putting up a scare wall and adding parental controls, then it makes no sense at all to censor content hosted on their own servers when they can (and do) pass it through the exact same scare wall and parental controls.
Actually I see no clash there at all. Both get the same age warning, one is controlled by Apple so they can apply the level of censorship to it that they wish.
Certainly we should be pointing out it's the wrong approach; but I see no ambiguity.
Pointing to a technical distinction that makes no real difference to a user's experience is just geek-wanking. Whether from a 3rd-party server or from Apple itself, if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting pissed, and if there's any company in the world that's going to be aware of this, it's Apple. They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls are sufficient for apps that can display 3rd-party-server content, and because they are, it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers that passes through the same age warning and parental controls.
As far as I can see it Apple consider the two things discrete issues. They slap an age 17 warning on apps which give access to adult material.
Plus content containing "pornography" on the App store is censored because they do not wish to distribute that content.
Again; I see no ambiguity there.
They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls are sufficient control for 3rd-party-server content
Fin in the sense they host the apps, sure. Fine in the sense they approve of that whole idea? Probably not. But how do you practically censor those apps (on their policy) without hindering the web experience for others. I guess they accept the trade off :) but are they fine with it? Who knows.
it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers.
I don't buy that argument, indeed you even make the counter point.
if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting pissed
Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous.
I never said the policy was ambiguous, I said it was nonsensical.
Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous.
My point was that a pissed-off parent doesn't care where the content came from, and that Apple, if anyone, is smart enough to realize this. Simple logic:
1. 3rd party content will piss people off as much as hosted.
2. Apple perceives scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for 3rd party content.
3. Therefore, Apple ought to perceive scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to manage the issue for hosted apps.
Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that you thought they would try to censor material served by 3rd parties if they could, as that was their vision for the platform. That's hard to square with the idea that you've been talking about Apple's censorship of apps they host as some sort of minimal grounds for absolving themselves of legal responsibility.
On top of that, the content that sparked this discussion is clearly legal. There's no possible way Apple would be in criminal danger from hosting it, and I'm sure a civil suit wouldn't make it very far either, especially considering the scare wall and the parental controls.
I guess I should also make it clear that I'm not suggesting Apple ought to host illegal (or even borderline legal) content simply because it can be accessed through a browser. Apple doesn't make the choice about what's legal, and I just assumed it was understood that that was out of scope of the discussion.
I demand that Apple immediately censor all apps that give access to art from the world's greatest museums. As it stands, innocent children can be exposed to trash such as this gay-kissing piece in the Louvre:
Two men kissing is an act of love not pornography.
Having said that, Apple has a right to (IMHO) censor these derivative works, it's their platform, take it or leave it.
If they wanted to censor the original text I would have a problem with that as it would, in some ways, be an attempt to rewrite history through the prism of corporate sensitivities. It would be better for them to not publish the text.
It shows two naked men having sex in various ways - one kneeling while removing the other's underwear, in another scene they are sitting on a chair stroking each others penises.
I have nothing against men having sex or pictures of men having sex. However, I cannot think of many main-stream shops that would stock such pictures - even most book shops would consider this pornographic.
I would rather my children didn't have to confront this yet, too. At least let them wait until they are sexual.
It is completely reasonable for Apple to reject this from THEIR shop.
I would rather my children didn't have to confront this yet, too.
Won't someone please think of the adults?
You have to be over 17 to buy the app anyway, and parental controls let you explicitly block this sort of app. Plus, if your kids want to see naked men having sex, well... let me tell you about this little thing called the Internet. It's directly accessible in the "safari" app, and it contains porn. Oh so much porn.
Anyway, I am tired of "for the children". It's not for the children, it's for the prudes.
I do see you your point. And I don't disagree. I also don't think that this graphic novel is offensive - it looks interesting, well written and well drawn. It is certainly art, not porn.
However I can't see how Apple can curate for quality without also curating for taste. To run a store like this no doubt means employing hundreds of young testers and a bunch of draconian policies. To get them to understand the subtlety between art and porn (or good porn and bad porn) is no doubt asking too much. To do it in a way that will not enrage prudes, governments, religious types, anyone who wants to bash Apple for any other reason etc is something else entirely.
To set up a good 18+ store in this way will be nigh-on impossible without either dropping all rules (and therefore all quality) or risking the wrath of the moral majority.
Having the occasional piece of genuine art rejected to walk this fine line is no doubt seen as a reasonable compromise.
I hope that Apple can fix this - but I'm not sure they will be able.
Uh. No. Or at least not any more so than than a picture of a woman stroking a man's penis (or a man touching a woman for that matter) If it's a drawn or painted image (as it was in this case) it's probably art. If it's a written description it's probably literature. If it's on porntube, it's porn.
No it is NOT their platform! If I buy it, it belongs to ME. They do, however, own the store and it just so happens that they've rigged the phone to prevent customers from obtaining software anywhere else. That's why my next phone will be anything but Apple.
Considering the number of young kids that now carry iPod Touches, and Apple's aspirations of overtaking the Nintendo DS as a kids gaming device, I think this is part of Apple trying to be careful about what it exposes children to. They don't want their products to carry a stigma with parents.
Boy, I'm sure glad Apple is helping bigoted parents everywhere prevent their kids from being exposed to the idea of same-sex relationships.
As Apple keeps getting more and more authoritarian, I find it hilarious that the hipster demographic that Apple originally marketed to is slowly having to become more and more conservative to remain fanboys.
In my mind, Apple has made a determination that such content may be sensitive to some parents. Its obvious that the iPod/iPhone/iPad platform (apps) is not a distribution channel for free speech.
From a business perspective, I understand why Apple is doing this. Agreeing with it or not is another matter, and doesn't help understand Apple's reasoning.
In my mind, Apple has made a determination that such content may be sensitive to some parents.
Right, so that way kids can be shoved off to another magical media device, and the parents can put the exposure of the child to "offensive content" in the hands of a giant company. We saw this same thing with music, movies and video games. Same shit, different day.
Its obvious that the iPod/iPhone/iPad platform (apps) is not a distribution channel for free speech.
Then why would anyone want to use it? Where do you draw the line? Can we censor pictures of the Iraq War in the App Store under the veneer of "respect for the families"? If Apple forbids content that questions the authority of the US government and hides behind the facade of "national security", is it still okay? Where is the right spot to draw the big red moral line? I think there isn't one, and Apple will just keep moving the goalpost until people stop refusing to buy their products. When faced with someone who isn't and won't be a customer due to a moral issue, you can either convince them to change their morals, or bend over backwards to shape your content to please them. Guess which is easier? Which leads me to my next point...
From a business perspective, I understand why Apple is doing this. Agreeing with it or not is another matter, and doesn't help understand Apple's reasoning.
I know what Apple's reasoning is - build an image to sucker in the largest number of consumers. It's the same thing every other company does; they want to make money! Is there really any interesting analysis to be had talking about their reasoning?
Really? Isn't it clear that Apple is positioning the ipod/iphone as the non-porn device? See Steve Job's multiple mentions of Android as the porn device.
Look, this is business. Apple isn't out to rid the world of adult material. But it is worried how parents might view their products. The kid market is significant, but if parents are worried that they're handing over a device that has a negative stigma, they'll buy a DS or something else.
Despite your personal views of whether this material is suitable for general consumption, wouldn't you agree that many parents would have concerns with their kids having access to the material presented in this comic?
Yes. This is not reason enough for Apple to censor it which is what this discussion boils down to. Is it okay for Apple to censor interracial couples in comics? Come on, this is the 21st century. Apple has no place censoring this. Should we have a homo-flag to qualify apps as suitable or not suitable for bigots?
As davidedicillo pointed out, he attempts to work this into an anti-gay angle by pointing out how a comic book not directly reviewed by Apple (it is downloadable through a comic store app) containing more explicit heterosex was not similarly censored, which is about as airtight an analysis as you might expect from Fox News. He literally has nothing else to base his anti-homosexual conclusions on.
I do think Apple is fundamentally misguided in its attempts to regulate content, and they're only going to dig themselves into a deeper hole by doing anything beyond adopting ratings and age blockers. But unfortunately this article is a yet another example of anti-Apple hysteria fueled sensationalism.