Hacker News Reader

Comment by simiones | Hacker News Reader

Will Apple next require browsers to stop allowing access to pornography?

No we’ll just need a pornography watcher’s license. But don’t worry, it’ll just be in your Apple wallet next to your Apple Card.

This is similar to what's happening in the UK - https://www.ageid.com/

We've got that in the UK. Most (all?) cell service providers require you to call them up and ask them to unblock your access to "NSFW" sites over mobile data.

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!"

> websites of an adult nature

Overly formal language like this always cracks me up.

I've no doubt btw that the language and the strident tone used by the rep are meant to nudge (perhaps even shame?) the customer away from enabling this option. Joke's on them!

> perhaps even shame the customer

absolutely! i hear you

Irritatingly, it's also accurate, since it's not just a porn block.

I got blocked by the filter when trying to reach urbandictionary.com.

That's so strange!

The UK did not go through with the porn block. You can perfectly well set up an account without any NSFW filtering, and as far as I can remember, it wasn't even 'opt out'. I'm with Virgin--oh the irony--and have never had any filtering.

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

The GP was talking specifically about cellular (mobile) data. Three[0], Vodafone[1], EE[2] and O2[3] all have an adult content filter enabled by default for mobile data.

[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...

No joke, I created an iOS app a few years back that had a web view with a built in search bar and was told I needed to mark my app as 18+ because users could search for inappropriate content. My appeal was denied.

No, because Apple doesn't allow 3rd party browsers on iOS platform anyway. They can just enable content blocking at any time.

This meme needs to die. Yes you can’t have alternative browser engines on iOS but outside of nerds in HN that’s an implementation detail that doesn’t really matter to end users. The stuff around the engine — the chrome — is the identity of the browser. Firefox gutted their rendering engine with project Servo. Chrome abandoned WebKit for Blink. Are they different browsers now? Of course not!

Apple can’t just enable content blocking because that would potentially break apps that use webviews for non-browser type activities.

I have to disagree: Apple certainly could block content in a selective way that avoids breaking apps (not that Apple is particularly averse to breaking existing apps).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com