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...
