NSFW Server Designation
support.discord.com
support.discord.com
I currently use an Android phone and wanted to go back to iOS, because I just preferred the overall experience, but this might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.
Will stick to Android and hopefully root to add privacy instead.
Privacy is a different concern. The mail app pre-installed on my Samsung phone wanted me to agree to a EULA that lets them process any of my mail. I also find that unacceptable, so I found a different mail client I liked and I did the same thing with the entire phone, basically. It's possible, but it's just no annoying and not something I really want to be dealing with. It seems like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
(Yes, I am well aware of the Librem and other such noble efforts, but I can also begrudgingly admit that I'm just not willing to put up with their flaws either.)
I used to love tinkering, but my phone has become nothing more than a tool and I need it to just work. If I forego Magisk and other root-related tools, can I expect mobile banking and such to just work?
EDIT: Seems I can't reply to a reply to this. (Does HN have a depth limit?) I am aware, Cyanogen hasn't been a thing for some time, hence my question: has the situation genuinely improved since then? I would like to avoid buying a phone just to see if it would work for me.
However at some point an update to my bank's app made it refuse to run citing insecure device - it's not rooted so this was a little surprising. I don't know how common that is, no experience with other banks.
If you're so worried about privacy on Android that you'd consider jumping to closed source Apple iOS, consider buying a OnePlus (or other supported) device and then installing LineageOS or another fully open source OS. You don't have to use stock Android and many of the custom OS / ROMs have 0 ties to Google / don't install Google service / etc.
And this wouldn't be the first time Apple doesn't apply its rules equally to everyone.
For instance, both the Reddit and Apollo apps are rated 17+. There's nothing "adult" about them, except that it can access adult subreddits.
So by banning adult channels, Discord is likely looking to drop the age rating on their app. A 12+ or 9+ would be more appealing and potentially allow them a broader audience, especially when trying to target the teen crowd which may have parental filters enabled on their phones.
It's never about the actual thing haha. Americans (averaged and skewed by power) are really weird about sex
As a parent, it's 100% about the actual thing. Whatever the additional motivations are for Faceless Multinational Corporations to be thoughtful about it, I'm glad they are.
Before the cries of "censorship", this is about kids not stumbling about NSFW/NSFL content before they're equipped (by parents, educators, etc.) to deal with it. When they want to find it, they will be able to.
But it's not just kids who use Discord (and other platforms). If you're concerned about kids accidentally discovering adult content, by all means add a parental control setting somewhere that hides any NSFW content. Then everyone else who is of legal age and equipped to deal with such content can, if they wish to do so.
For sure! And thank you for the response — I just realized I must've skimmed over this very important detail (emphasis mine): "Additionally, all users on the iOS platform (including those aged 18+) will be blocked from joining AND ACCESSING NSFW servers."
Okay, that's stupid.
Life of a teenager is much better with internet, including ability to access porn anytime, our predecessors were sharing erotic journals and other images with each other, just because they didn't know any better.
kids who have no interest in content like that shouldn't have unrestricted access to computers anyway, and if your child is old enough to manage his time playing games, he is old enough to figure out sex on his own the same way his parents did
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree that it's universally ridiculous to guard children from any kind of porn. As a parent, I'm trying to help the children I'm responsible for to develop informed, healthy attitudes about sex. Unfettered access to the deep end of the internet porn pool won't help me help them do that.
Sort of like official "I swear she was 18, officer".
o/w, "Safari supports parental controls" argument is BS.
EDIT: Getting downvoted. Is this incorrect?
1) The distinction if browsers ship their own engine or just embed system provided WebKit is ultimately irrelevant to the question at hand. I can go on the App Store and download "Chrome" or "Firefox" and use those applications to access websites.
2) Browsers do have age ratings on the App Store. It's 17+.
Wow. That's an excellent and very telling point.
What is the point of IOS's endless restrictions and censorship of free speech?
Is the point really to protect users from exercising their own intelligence or guarding their own kids, or is it to protect users from alternatives to Apple's own products?
It's kinda like Gatekeeper on Mac OS; you cannot (easily) install apps that aren't from the App Store. Was this only to protect you from malware? Really?
It's like all of these restrictions have a dual purpose on Mac OS: the stated reason, and an unstated reason: to increase Apple's control over you.
I'm actually surprised that Apple even allows web browsers at all, or third party mail apps, or anything that lets people access things outside their walled garden.
It's not credible.
That's rather impolite. And I'm absolute surprised that Apple hasn't already eliminated the real web -- just like AOL and Microsoft (tried to subvert with MSN and IE), because full and unrestricted access to the web is full of negatives for Apple's business model.
> the last decade has been all about the iPhone and its pervasive and elegant access to literally millions of sources of content that is "outside Apple's walled garden".
No idea what this means. Are you talking about how the iPhone provides "pervasive and elegant access" to.. the web?
As a parent, you can add screen time restrictions to your child's phone that prevent them from accessing apps that are above a certain rating. This is a very powerful feature, that's really hard (impossible?) to bypass without social engineering.
It's possible that discord is concerned enough with this so as to block out nsfw servers. Do they have a lot of teenagers on their platform?
How?
As far as I can tell, the so called slippery slope fallacy came and went. We decided in favour of censorship -- but if you can censor one type of content, expect many more to be added to the list.
If I had the choice, I'd much rather have the completely free and open internet we used to have but that ship has sailed as you mentioned.
Also, I’m not a “we” and neither are you. Stop hiding behind some imaginary hive mind.
No, it's not different at all. Plenty of people see porn as "manipulating people's persectives to harm"; in fact Apple is doing it almost precisely because that's the mainstream opinion.
I think the dominant problem with the burgeoning pro-censorship crowd here on HN is that they still haven't grappled with the fact that they aren't going to be picking what gets censored. No matter how confidently you look out at the current landscape and think only they will be censored, you're never more than one power shift away from being the censored one, and more of you than you realize are zero power shifts away, as everetm has now just discovered.
Dysfunctional to the point of being unusable indeed.
And yet somehow you found this site, where you claimed the uncensored internet was a fantasy.
HN is heavily moderated. Try turning on showdead in your profile and reading the trash that dang and co. delete from here. I doubt you'll come away with the conclusion that it should all be left up.
This includes things like removing duplicate links and changing upvoted stories from tertiary sources to primary ones. Is it "censorship?" Yes. Does it make the site better? Yes.
Increasing comfort with censorship of a larger range of views will also translate into increasing comfort with stronger measures taken, because of course if you are running around saying censorable things you should get higher interest rates or it should show up on your credit report. But... are you sure you're going to be the ones in charge of what gets censored? Because you aren't.
Advocating for less censorship and less consequences for censorship, not no censorship, is a sensible Nash equilibrium to pursue for everyone. Advocating for more censorship and more comfort with censorship will empower people who will eventually censor you. Those who are using the gestalt's comfort with censorship (and equivalent comfort with censorship elsewhere) are only using the censoring of things you agree with today as a cover for the acquisition of power. Once they have it, what you want it for will not be something they're too worried about. They're going to use it for themselves. It is wiser not to give that power up just because they're promising to use it for things you like today.
(Among the ways in which censorship is a continuum are the size of the community in which it is taking place (HN is fairly small), and the nature of what is being censored (most of what gets nuked from HN is for tone or outright trolling, though I do not assert all). It isn't even remotely hypocritical to be comfortable with that, which is rather minimal and functional, while being uncomfortable with the increasingly political nature of censorship being advocated for in the largest forums. I'm also on record as being skeptical as to whether something the size of "Facebook" can ever be "a community": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146868 )
I like your point about Facebook's size. They've been unable to define global rules in part because large segments of their user base hold directly opposite values to the point that stating their beliefs, genuinely held and of majority opinion in their communities, would be deleted under common sense trolling rules in other parts of that user base. Facebook has three options: leave everything controversial up, delete all of it, or take a side. They've done all three of these at various points and they've all been disastrous.
At FB scale their moderation started with "you can hide it if it annoys you" (aka not bothering) - the easiest technical solution. Doesn't actual address the problematic content, but perhaps doesn't feed the trolls.
Going beyond that to any kind of action requires determining whether something breaks any rules, and also faces the issue that reporting is used as a weapon, so simply deleting everything (mass) reported doesn't work either... And figuring out if it breaks rules just falls back onto rules which are imperfect.
As you sum up well, they're at such a scale that they have complete polar opposites on the platform. And in a sense, perhaps what we need are more subdivisions, not fewer - maybe what we are seeing here is the symptom of existing tensions, albeit exacerbated through being able to reach an audience that disagrees in real-time.
That said, this decision makes no sense unless Discord is being influenced by a third party, and like OP, my first and only suspect is Apple. Yeah it would be inconsistent for Apple, but it's just as inconsistent for Discord and there is at least precedent for this inconsistency on Apple's app store (eg Amazon getting preferential treatment for in-app purchases). There is also precedent for Apple not allowing app developers to explain how app functionality had to be altered to comply with Apple's whims (eg Facebook getting in trouble for publishing information about Apple's 30% cut on in-app purchases).
My best guess is that Apple thinks of Discord as a platform which is more popular with children than Reddit, so they are trying to get ahead of parental complaints by eliminating access to NSFW content via Discord's iOS app altogether. I have no evidence for this, though, so I guess we'll wait and see.
Although I have made a living in the mobile industry for years and years now, I am personally quite happy at the moment to be middle the move from Android and iOS to PinePhone.
Nobody controls my content on that device but me.
It might be rocky, but the minimalism of Pine and its ecosphere represent, is refreshing - in light of the endless, endless tracking, deceit and plain uselessness of iOS and Android apps, in spite of it all.
It might be time for us all to reset our expectations and go back to a 100% open, compiler-onboard platform. I think PinePhone, and others just like that, are ripe for the attempt ..
Don’t worry our corporate friends will let us know what is trending, what topics we should discus, and keep us safe!!!
I prefer the real world.
Same here. I'm tired of Android's wonkiness but this is a showstopper.
I can only assume that it is also against Apple's rules to blame Apple for their draconian policies, and therefore they had to amend the text.
It is time to end corporate feudalism and the first step is installing applications the way they were meant to be installed instead of through one specific corporate gateway.
Apple just needs to have a version of "fastboot oem unlock" (or, for that matter, "csrutil --disable") where I can sideload applications with a big warning on the lock screen/splash screen that says the device is not secure. Besides, as long as the code is running inside the sandbox, who cares?
The only alternative would be not to have an iOS app, but that would also be a significant blow to their business. I can't, in good conscience, blame them for complying here.
Have things changed?
Who knew when we got PC software on floppies, without IBM's permission, it was the good old days?
After decades it seems apple and google closed the barn door.
The whole "you are free not to buy from someone else " doesn't work if you are being lied to. I believe that my rights as a consumer are being violated by this practice.
There's now enough antitrust cases against Apple that I'm hopeful they're going to lose in a few serious jurisdictions and be forced to change their ways.
The risk of this is already in their SEC filings, so they know it might happen. Funny they disclose the whole truth when it's legally required, but don't let others tell the truth when it's inconvenient.
I still have hope that Facebook will pull something major in response to the ATT changes. To be clear: I support the goals of ATT, and I think Apple is in the right on it. But I think freedom of distribution on iOS is more important than this, and when choosing between Freedom and Privacy (or as our forefathers would say, Freedom and Safety); I will choose Freedom, every single time.
Apple should not be forcing users to choose. There do exist non-resolvable dichotomies when one has to choose, but this is not one of them.
Are people in SV not aware? I was under the impression that they are acutely aware but are being paid gigantic sums of money to put aside any concerns and opinions.
What about Discord blocking servers full of war scenes and car chasing with shootings?
You can see the far-reaching impact of the odd "Violence yes! Sex no!" American morality in so many places. One recent example that struck me: GTA Online, a game rife with violence and destruction and even sex (surprisingly for an American game), but the chat has a profanity filter that filters words that are otherwise present in the game's scripted dialog and soundtrack left and right.
1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNLOXJw0aUU
"better get down off that horse, sherrif: we're fixin' ter fuck yeh, now ... but we're not gonna fuck yeh fast; we're gonna fuck yeh sloooooow"
It's made by Rockstar North in Edinburgh. Almost all GTA games have been satires of American culture made by a British company.
European self-righteousness is getting annoying on this forum.
Or it could be even simpler and more practical than that, most children don’t have weapons, but they do have human bodies.
Perhaps Apple thinks that the risk of seeming prude is worth it to prevent some kid from falling into sexual abuse and the bigger risk of mom and dad not letting them shop freely for apps.
Citation? I don't see anything in the announcement that indicates this is being driven by "US morality". Given the US has one of the largest porn industries on the planet, I think it's a bit of a leap to make that claim without some proof.
>What about Discord blocking servers full of war scenes and car chasing with shootings?
What about it? They're a private company who may choose to not be associated with that content. If you tried to post raw war footage on HN it would be immediately removed and you'd likely face a ban if you kept doing it repeatedly. Is that "US morality" or just a choice about what content they want to host/link to?
Not "the US" but the US-based Apple Store who have a track record for banning chat apps that they disagree with.
Do you live in the US? I’d say it’s generally pretty well known that American culture glorifies violence, yet are very prude and puritanical about sex.
I do live in the US. I would not say that's pretty well known, and turning on the TV I find sex pretty much everywhere. Outright nudity is banned, but that's about it. The only place people are "puritanical" about sex is the bible belt, which is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the US population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/03/29/church-me...
And that 'someone' is usually the payment processor (paypal, mastercard, etc. etc.). So I recognize it's not Patreon fault per se (which is probably why it's so inconsistent).
Some of the most sex-negative people in my social circle are atheists btw. Sex negativity is shared on both the left and right.
And strangely enough, some religious people I know are strangely sex positive. (See the myriad of gentlemen's clubs in the south). It's not so cut and dry as just blaming religious groups on this one. Yeah, Church and sexuality don't really match up but its not like everyone believes 100% what the various churches preach.
Right, 'cause Apple (presumably; otherwise this restriction would apply to Android and desktop as well) imposes such rules for gits and shiggles.
Those of us living in the United States and subjected to the inconsistently-applied puritanical moral code that permeates throughout it witness and experience said permeation daily. You want a citation? The article's a citation; it's literally an American company imposing this restriction. Tumblr banning "pornographic" content entirely is a citation. Google making it literally impossible to disable SafeSearch is a citation. The continued existence of rules around profanity on TV and radio is a citation.
> What about it? They're a private company who may choose to not be associated with that content.
I think the point of that remark is that Discord does currently allow "servers full of war scenes and car chasing with shootings", and hardly anyone bats an eye at this, yet the moment anyone shows so much as a boob it's suddenly an outrage.
So it's puritanical code. The same code that believes homosexuality is a sin. And you think the gay CEO of Apple is basing his decisions on that code. But there's no record of him saying or doing so and it logically makes absolutely no sense.
>I think the point of that remark is that Discord does currently allow "servers full of war scenes and car chasing with shootings", and hardly anyone bats an eye at this, yet the moment anyone shows so much as a boob it's suddenly an outrage.
And those servers are 18+... and banned from the iOS platform, and are part of this announcement. So I still am not following the logic.
Private companies seem to have more rights and less responsebilities than people these days, can I incorporate myself?
Hypocrisy is grandest in 'traditional' societies, Bin laden had an enviable porn collection.
The US has the largest porn industry and its popular culture is full of sexual suggestiveness, but there is a very strange undercurrent of immense fear of realistic portrayal of sexual relations or even naked bodies. Not the cartoonish porn bimbos with huge plastic tits, not the endless comedic stream of inadequacy jokes (Al Bundy etc) - but meaningful and enjoyable sex and nudity.
If you ever take a deep dive into the French or Italia cinema, one of the things you'll discover is the extreme immaturity of how intersex relations are depicted in American popular culture. It's very rare to see sex depicted as a natural part of a healthy relationship, and not an achievement, a reward or a proof of masculinity.
Pornography? America. Religious conservatism? Also America. Unrealistic body image, photoshop and actors on steroids? America. Highest obesity rates? Also America. Nazi flags as a constitutional right? America. Safe spaces and twitter mobs? Also America. Most powerful copyright lobby? America. Piracy software and the copyleft movement? Also America.
I really would prefer the ability to choose the content I want through each app. Perhaps they could have a country of interest drop down. I certainly don't want someone to just up and decide but in today's social and litigious environment I can see why some companies are making the choices they do.
Northern Scandinavian language can be quite "colourful", and mid-day TV with full on nudity was normal.
But also why I was not allowed into the cinema to see "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" when it was released as it was a 13 due to violence, and I messed up my birthyear when the cinema ticket seller asked when I was born (I was 11)...
It often reminds me of platforms that try to stand out and be different from the others by empowering users in various ways, and this works at the start, but as they get millions of users they realize the other platforms acted as they did not out of choice, but out of force. You have to comply with app store guidelines, payment processor requests, banks, various world government(s), profit models that actually work, and so on, and before you know it you've become the very thing you sought to disrupt and are no different than every other major social platform with >100M users.
I have this weird thought (from a fictional standpoint) that maybe all the adware and other bloat is rapidly converging on an inflection point that will cause some kind of technological collapse where we will have to start over from some earlier reference point, due to sentient AI or something. But I wouldn't know how, exactly.
It might make for a mildly interesting SF plot point.
It's also a minor plot point in Anathem by Neal Stephenson
Unfortunately, these smaller communities have more churn to them as the bedrock contributors fall out for various reasons, and then its on to next. But at least we now know the cycle of life, and more importantly, what to stay away from.
I applaud apple for their work towards making iOS secure, but I still just can't get on board since they can decide at any time I don't have the ability to choose for myself what software I want to run. There's a reason my first iPhone was immediately jail-broken and I left the platform almost 10 years ago.
I don't think this is as far fetched as some would believe. Someone should tell Apple that even Disney produces R-rated movies.
I mean, banning any of those would be less unreasonable than banning NSFW content.
The whole reason this discussion comes up time after time is that it's not possible to side load apps for a regular user.
edit: This is apparently true. I can't believe anyone puts up with that. Welcome to the Apple 1984 commercial in real life.
I recall the Vodafone customer service rep very distinctly asking me, "Sir, are you aware that this will mean you will be able access websites of an adult nature?" and replying with a resounding "Yes, I look forward to it, please go ahead!"
Overly formal language like this always cracks me up.
absolutely! i hear you
I got blocked by the filter when trying to reach urbandictionary.com.
If it happened to you, perhaps you just happened to set up your ISP when there was _talk_ of the bill, but ultimately it didn't pass.
"UK's controversial 'porn blocker' plan dropped": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50073102
[0] http://ask3.three.co.uk/srvs/cgi-bin/webisapi.dll/,/?new,kb=...
[1] https://www.vodafone.co.uk/about-us/code-of-practice/content...
[2] https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/safety-and-security/content-l...
[3] https://www.o2.co.uk/help/safety-and-security/age-restricted...
Apple can’t just enable content blocking because that would potentially break apps that use webviews for non-browser type activities.
Beyond that, the browser engine may be an irrelevant implementation detail to the end user, but at the ecosystem-level, iOS's Safari lock-in has many harmful effects that are already well known and widely discussed.
Yet somehow this behavior is tolerated when it comes to this industry. The whole parade is being run by greedy wankers with no respect for individual liberty.
An example of actual purchase would be a fully free/libre and open source software.
If you’re running a Western startup and think the open internet is a noble idea, please, check your morality at the door.
- Join tons of servers, where the friends/lolz are
- Many run popular bots
- Many popular bots have porn commands, for example the popular Dank Memer, which is a general utility/games bot
-- /black posts BBC content
-- /group posts group sex pics
-- /xmas posts christmas themed porn?!
- Its not uncommon for people to post nudes of themselves or friends
Sometimes the content stays inside of channels labeled NSFW, but often it pops up elsewhere. If you're hanging out in many discord servers, it can be pretty difficult to fully avoid porn in your feeds, or its always 1 click away.
Its mostly left to server admins and mods to enforce those rules.
Do with that what you will, but its based on that basic set of information that Apple and Discord are approaching these issues.
It doesn't fit with the published iOS terms, but as we've seen before, Apple frequently ignores the published App Store terms during approval.
So to clarify for people who don't use Discord or don't understand the article. What Discord is announcing is that now they will start marking entire SERVERS as NSFW. Keep in mind that server owners have been able to mark CHANNELS within a server as NSFW for a long time now and the iOS app has respected that (when you enter an NSFW channel you must be logged in, not a guest, and must explicitly agree each time you enter). So the blocking of NSFW content in the iOS app has been around for a while. A server that is full of NSFW content would simply have an NSFW block on every channel. This would meet Apple's censorship requirements and Discord has been meeting it for a while. Nothing new here on the Apple front.
What is new is that Microsoft is interested in Discord. Recently Discord has made the news for fostering violent or NSFW content (most publicly from Wall Street Bets, which was the first time lots of Wall Street investors had heard of Discord). This change to internally-dictating NSFW servers seems like a way to make Discord more attractive to companies like Microsoft in a sale. Someone like Microsoft doesn't want to be looked at as fostering or promoting bad content, so these protections are ways to heal that image.
Again, the change here isn't the introduction of an NSFW blocker. That has been around for a while. The change is that now Discord themselves will flag entire servers as NSFW. Previously it was up to server admins/owners to mark the individual channels on their server as NSFW. Now Discord is taking a lead to control/censor/block this content.
This is an Apple policy not a Reddit policy
https://www.vice.com/en/article/78k8yb/reddit-ios-apps-disap...
Edit: added the url I meant to use in the first place
We also got rejected once because the top post that day had the word “fuck” in it. That was a fun one.
Life is full of wonderful people of varying shades of weirdness. Freezing the people at the fringes out of mobile platforms does a disservice to everyone.
What?! Is this an accurate interpretation of Apple’s policy? I know you cant have specifically NSFW apps but I didn't think their policy applied to user generated content. It’s certainly not the status quo to ban all NSFW user content on iOS on other platforms.
“If your app includes user-generated content from a web-based service, it may display incidental mature “NSFW” content, provided that the content is hidden by default and only displayed when the user turns it on via your website”
Join the community through the web link and you should be able to access the content, I’m not sure why they are blocking accessing as well as joining...
(I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Discord's interpretation, but a lot of folks are glossing over "incidental", so.)
Can't wait for the parents of big brother to step forward with this in the future. /s
Apple defines exactly what moderation is required for any social media on their platform.
But sometimes I really just want to indicate my situation by pointing an emoji gun at my emoji head, or respond to a friend with a GIF some might consider offensive, and I really think anyone who can be trusted to use the internet should also be trusted to handle that ability somewhat responsibly, and eradicating it from our communications repertoire like this really does not serve anyone in my view.
The right long term policy might be to have multiple apps or a feature to restrict NSFW access within the Discord app akin to Netflix, but to address the issue immediately, this is a reasonable short term policy.
Don't forget an enormous user base are kids from 13-17, so this, in my view, is entirely reasonable until they sort out a longer term solution.
Has Discord confirmed that they discussed their intentions with Apple prior to publishing these changes?
(If they did not, then that opens the door for many more uncomfortable questions for Discord.)
"Sorry about this, but App Store rules say you can’t join age restricted servers on iOS. Please use the desktop app or website to join this server."
This does not clarify matters, as both of the following three contradictory statements all agree with it:
1. "Our lawyers informed us that the app store rules prohibit this, and we chose not to discuss or contest our lawyers' interpretation with Apple before proceeding."
2. "Apple both informed us that the app store rules prohibit this, and we chose not to appeal that ruling with Apple before proceeding."
3. "Apple both informed us that the app store rules prohibit this, but we exhausted all avenues of appeal before proceeding."
Which is it, Discord?
The louder you scream "iOS is blocking adult content", the faster iPhones will approach 100% marketshare for kids, because parents buy those devices and they like some little help for managing content.
This is the real reason this is happening. Other apps have no problem with hiding NSFW content by default (i.e. Reddit, Twitter). Discord has a burning need to lower their age rating for some reason.
As it is, banning just some means Apple is (a) choosing the winners and (b) being hypocritical
(Not that Discord appears to support web push right now anyways)
One can argue that decisions like this are driven by valuation, revenue, and stock price; but I don't think so. If I were a major Apple shareholder, I'd be majorly concerned. From every possible angle, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot by crossing their arms and saying "no, we won't work with you, you work with us." Its unsustainable; developers can be pushed, even quite far, but eventually they will snap back, and Apple can't afford to acquire all of them before they do.
Apple, and the iOS platform, physically cannot sustain the combined push-back from all the areas they're experiencing it; from revenue cut, to alternate payment processors, to the game streaming ban, to gagging developers from telling their customers why they have to do what they do, to their stance on naked humans, to their app tracking transparency changes... these are all stances you can take when you've got a few million customers, but they're the sole source of executable code for a billion devices around the planet.
Its absolutely and totally unacceptable and untenable at this point. Ethically, sure. Legally, very likely. Even economically! Apple's short-sighted App Store policies are primed to substantially hurt that part of their business, and that pain will echo throughout their tight ecosystem. If I can't play Xbox Game Streaming or Fortnite, maybe I don't buy an iPhone. If I don't buy an iPhone, I definitely don't buy an Apple Watch, nor likely a Mac either. I may pay for Apple TV+, but certainly not Apple Music, or Fitness, or iCloud Drive.
Why are their shareholders putting up with this? It baffles me. History has demonstrated one thing, with the clarity of polished glass: We do better when we work together. Countries who isolate their economies inevitably falter. Markets which isolate perform worse. Open source projects gain more traction than similar proprietary ones. Working together, with each other, is always the way forward; its better ethically, morally, legally, and economically. But Apple refuses to work with anyone else.
They're choosing to fight wars on ten different fronts. No one forced them to. Tim Cook has adopted the likeness of Ghengis Khan, trying to secure Apple's legacy for the next century by forcing anyone who Thinks Differently to instead think like Apple, or be destroyed. It won't work, and Apple will be irrevocably hurt in the process.
The government needs to get involved. Not only to protect consumers; but to protect an otherwise strong, amazing American business. They're destroying themselves for no reason. I don't want to live in this reality Apple has plotted for the world, but I also don't want Apple to return to their status of the late 90s; there's a middleground where they remain a force for legitimate good in the domains of privacy, security, and ease-of-use. I miss that Apple, and I'm fearful that Tim Cook's legacy won't be the highly successful Apple of the 2010s, but instead what happens to them in the 2020s: a growing list of companies who refuse to do business with them, sophisticated customers leaving by the handful, and overblown government intervention.
It could be different, Tim. But not like this.
That doesn't sound like self-designation is the only path to being marked NSFW.
It galls me to be 'required' to use an app to browse a website.
i hate that there’s no to let my ios device correctly auto correct fuck. it’s never duck. never.
This whole thing seems so poorly implemented. They should just call it the "don't show kids pictures of boobies" rule and drop the "work" pretense.
One small group of people think they know what it means. Meanwhile they are conflating two entirely different groups of people (people at work, and teens), and disregarding the cultural conventions of the rest of the planet. It makes them look stupid.
You could very well attempt to sue Discord and Apple.
Call me a prude, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have Discord and Discord NSFW as separate apps.
Apple wouldn't permit such an app in the app store, so it would be a horrible idea.
Not really, this is where Section 230 comes in.