Apple Censors a Gay Kiss in Oscar Wilde Comic
thebigmoney.com
thebigmoney.com
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.
Apple seem to be on some content policing crusade which is ill judged IMHO, but it's fairly obvious why this is censored.
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.
http://gizmodo.com/5562802/the-latest-examples-of-apples-stu...
Scroll down to see the example from the Apple-Approved Kick-ass comic, which did feature nudity as well as (hetero) sexual acts.
Here's the iPhone dev agreement: http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf
The only pertinent section I can find is:
"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.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-puzzl...
Stranger still, "iGirl uncut", where you can "Blow her, shake her, touch her and more", must not be obscene, objectionable, or pornographic.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8
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.
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 :(
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.
Apple, you suck.
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...
Agreed entirely.
Ha, yes. Well, you know what I meant. Not to be confused with I know it when I see it. :)
If you buy a CD that should have explicit lyrics at Walmart, they're bleeped out. Walmart refuses to sell music otherwise.
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.
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.
It's a tricky business, being in the content censorship business, because the shield of common carrier status is very useful.
I don't think that's being 'fair'.
"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."
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/app-economy/2010/06/11/it-g...
They censor the content being sold directly through the iTunes app store.
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.
Certainly we should be pointing out it's the wrong approach; but I see no ambiguity.
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.
4. But, nonsensically, they don't.
This way they can legally wash their hands of it. Simple as.
Your taking two seperate issues and turnig them into one.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiss_Briseis_Painter_Louvr...
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.
Umm, not really.
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.
See? That's what "owning the platform" means.
The point here is that it is nudity.
Once there were special 'cinemas' and printed pictures in 'magazines'.
And, before the advent of photography there were etchings.
Most of it was purely for titillation rather than artistic pleasure.
---key--------
cinema = youtube-in-a-building photography = jpegs-on-paper magazines = non-electric-ipad
hope that helps
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.
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.
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.
The idea that Apple is worried about exposing kids to gay sex is just laughable.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/steve-jobs-porn/ http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/04/20/steve-jobs-email-rep...
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=...