The larger hypocrisy is that our Victorian upbringing shuns nudity while glamorizing military and killing in general. I don't remember the last time two nude ladies from Mars ever killed anyone or drew a drop of blood but you can see gory TVs shows during primetime including worthless acts of violence such as MMA "fights" (at any other time they would be put in jail for their actions), violent action movies (sorry Fast and Furious), and current and futuristic military movies showing people get blown to bits. The latter are increasing without any stop in sight because people crave violence and are ashamed about seeing a nude body (at least publicly). The only way each of every one of you were brought to this world was through sex but my hope is that the vast majority of you will not leave this world through the violence portrayed on TV and movies.
For those embarrased by nudity, change changes. I'm embarrassed by Fox News so I change channels but I allow people to view content others feel violates their well being. And as for protecting children, give me a break. Most of the TV shows on during the normal time children area awake are filled with trash and things no child should be exposed to. The government can only regulate so much, parents needs to regulate how their children are raised.
Technically everyone gets into this world thru both sex and violence, lots of blood, tearing flesh, screaming.
So while the producers of the Fast & Furious created depictions of violence for art and entertainment, you are responsible for real causing actual physical pain, trauma, and suffering to another person just to get air into your greedy little lungs.
Dominic Toretto holds the moral high ground here. :smokey:
My God, what is this world coming to? Americans must only be delivered pablum, because anything that might be "adult" taxes their feeble puerile brains.
There’s plenty wrong with porn. First and foremost is that the vast majority of porn denigrates women, turning them into sex objects whose sole purpose is to service men, depicting women being humiliated and subjected to all manner of degradation. The there’s the matter of young males watching porn and being taught that ejaculating in a female’s face while yanking her by her hair is the norm for a loving sexual relationship.
Oh yes, there’s a lot wrong with porn and I don’t find Apple’s policies to be a double standard at all.
So exactly what is the difference between men and women, ya know... between the 'sexes'? Seems like nature has divided our species into two groups with differing naughty bits, and elaborate sensory systems whose specific function is to detect those interesting differences. So we're all sex objects, just with varying degrees of popularity.
I don't understand how people work this into outrage. The idea that porn degrades women is as fantastical as the porn scenarios themselves, it just mindless moralizing fodder for those entertained by prudish depictions and concepts, mental masturbation for Puritan fetishists. :smokey:
Ive always thought Apple should allow porn and let the parents manage the devices of their kids accordingly.
Appreciate your level headed commentary. Isn't this really the solution here? Just give Apple TV parental controls to block out programming on HBO just like I can on my Directv. I'm not sure you can't already do this but it seems like a simple fix.
I would say that I appreciate that Apple restricts adult content apps, because the nature of that business would open the doors to a flood of questionable apps that met the strict rules Apple already imposes but otherwise offered no meaningful content, and there's enough of that. Of course if the App Store could be restricted by adult content, I don't really see the issue -- all of that gets filtered out of my search view. But there does seem to be a hazy standard as to what crosses the line for Apple. Dating apps for instance require "tasteful" profile photos of their members, which cannot even be suggestive of sexuality, and so the HBO softporn programming sort of flies in the face of that. Perhaps the difference is with a movie you have to watch it to get to the "offensive" material, whereas the apps potentially present it on the surface.
Honestly, Apple's censorship of content does bother me. We are adults, we should be able to obtain any legal content.
I do not know why we can't have an "opt-in" for adult content. If you don't dig through 4 menus and select the setting, you never know it's there. It could even be tied to an AppleID that has been verified to belong to an adult.
Cone on Apple, it's about time we grew up on this one.
It has to do with the overall intention of each service or application.
There's a big difference between a streaming TV service of a known brand like HBO (or Cinemax or Showtime or whatever) and an application. With a service like HBO, you know exactly what you're getting and most of it is not about porn (or erotica).
There's also a difference because 90% or more of HBO is not erotica (Game of Thrones and the like aside) but 90% of a porn-related application might be porn.
Most people don't think of HBO or Showtime as porn channels in the same way as they think about Penthouse or possibly Playboy as porn channels. The apps would (or could) be more akin to a Penthouse channel.
I can see why Apple would want to limit the App Store from being overwhelmed with porn. It would make the entire site look trashy (although I suppose it could be segregated). The inclusion of a network like HBO, in spite of its trashy soft-core "erotica" (it's really not porn), doesn't make Apple TV look trashy.
And there's another difference: although the program referred to was soft-core, my understanding of the porn industry is that they shoot multiple versions at the same time, including hard core versions. So the people in those shoots are having actual sex and because of that, one could maintain that there's a level of exploitation of the actors that goes beyond the level of exploitation in a show like "Game of Thrones", where there's no actual sex act taking place.
Furthermore, Apple has always included R-rated movies that might have nudity and sex scenes, so it's not like they're really censoring anything.
I really don't understand the anger expressed in the OP. There's plenty of places to get porn if you want it. IMO, I'm glad it's not there in the App store.
Appreciate your level headed commentary. Isn't this really the solution here? Just give Apple TV parental controls to block out programming on HBO just like I can on my Directv. I'm not sure you can't already do this but it seems like a simple fix.
I would say that I appreciate that Apple restricts adult content apps, because the nature of that business would open the doors to a flood of questionable apps that met the strict rules Apple already imposes but otherwise offered no meaningful content, and there's enough of that. Of course if the App Store could be restricted by adult content, I don't really see the issue -- all of that gets filtered out of my search view. But there does seem to be a hazy standard as to what crosses the line for Apple. Dating apps for instance require "tasteful" profile photos of their members, which cannot even be suggestive of sexuality, and so the HBO softporn programming sort of flies in the face of that. Perhaps the difference is with a movie you have to watch it to get to the "offensive" material, whereas the apps potentially present it on the surface.
Apple already allows sex (both gay and straight), fetish and dating apps on their platform.
Actually the rationale is quite simple if you follow the money. Yes, to those in the US the App store restrictions seem kind of pointless when Safari already offers a much larger conduit to porn than any app store app could provide. But Apple also operates in countries that practice censorship. Authoritarian regimes like China can and do filter what people access through Safari without any direct involvement of or impact to Apple. But since they cannot snoop on App Store connections (at least not since Apple upgraded to https (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/03/09/apple-finally-adopts-https-for-the-app-store-here-is-why-it-matters/)), they could and probably would ban Apple from operating unless it policed the App Store according to the party's agenda.
The Article mention 500PX and Vine. Those apps don't contain any porn or objectionable content, they are merely conduits, so such apps don't get around country censorship filters. There is therefor no rationale for objecting to such apps on the basis you describe.
I live in Ireland. This backward country still has censorship laws and a list of banned books. Should such books be kept out of iTunes just because this piddling little country is full of self-righteous catholics?
I think it is nearly impossible for Apple to be completely consistent regarding what they allow and don't allow in this area. I suspect that HBO is allowed because 98% of what they offer is not porn of any kind. It is also not the primary purpose of HBO to cater to people who are looking for porn. Someone used Playboy as an example. I think it would be reasonable say that Playboy's primary purpose is to create material for adults and adult men more specifically. At the risk of being accused of trolling I will throw this out. On my Huffington Post app yesterday I got to watch a surveillance video of a 23 year old man punching a 4 year old child in the face knocking the child to the floor. Why is no one offended at being shown that? We should also not forget that porn = $$$.
There are lots of thing wrong with the porn industry. If there ever was a thing such as a fairtrade certificate for porn, at least it would make sure everyone involved were treated with respect, with a fair compensation, and according to regulations. I think there are som really dirty contracts for porn actors out there..
Then there's the psychological effect of consuming porn.. But that's completely on the other end.
Yeah. It's good they take a stance for their app store. Now I haven't tried HBO Now, so I don't know what they're talking about. But if it's soft, no genitals in sight, porn I guess it's a sort of gray zone..
Today a web app on iOS will work nearly just as good as a native app. So anything can be done through Safari, then streamed to the Apple TV.
Having said all that. If we say no to porn, then do we say no to controversial movies such as Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, and the likes?
The author was making a generalization about porn in theory. There is nothing wrong with the idea. As always the problems arise in the implementation and the abuse when it's put into practice by people. Should we throw out all porn because some of it exploits women or some of it leads to aggressive behavior? This is no different than the their deal with HBO or the App Store. No one has a problem with Apple wanting to police the App Store so that we all get quality content that is consistent. But it is impossible to create a blanket guideline that covers every single image, movie, app etc. so Apple must go through every submission. Even Google has begun policing the Play Store and cracking down on apps for their content.
It's not called hypocrisy. It's called capitalism. Apple can decide what goes on their devices and what doesn't. Anyone who has a problem with that can buy an Android. Apple is not a government body. This is not a democracy. This is business. And apps are not the same as TV programming. The HBO NOW deal is huge. Apple has every right to pursue it and I'm glad they did. Apple's an easy target. I for one support them all the way.
Even with HBO Apple still has a long way to go to catch up with Roku when it comes to "Porn" Just google Adult Roku and you will see there are so many ways to watch full HD XXX content on Roku. The Apple TV would be the last device you would ever need for watching Porn. 8-) lol
The larger hypocrisy is that our Victorian upbringing shuns nudity while glamorizing military and killing in general. I don't remember the last time two nude ladies from Mars ever killed anyone or drew a drop of blood but you can see gory TVs shows during primetime including worthless acts of violence such as MMA "fights" (at any other time they would be put in jail for their actions), violent action movies (sorry Fast and Furious), and current and futuristic military movies showing people get blown to bits. The latter are increasing without any stop in sight because people crave violence and are ashamed about seeing a nude body (at least publicly). The only way each of every one of you were brought to this world was through sex but my hope is that the vast majority of you will not leave this world through the violence portrayed on TV and movies.
For those embarrased by nudity, change changes. I'm embarrassed by Fox News so I change channels but I allow people to view content others feel violates their well being. And as for protecting children, give me a break. Most of the TV shows on during the normal time children area awake are filled with trash and things no child should be exposed to. The government can only regulate so much, parents needs to regulate how their children are raised.
Maybe if at the end of the people having sex they die in various exteme violent ways Apple and all the people here against porn would be okay with it.
MPAA Film Ratings meet Supreme Court guidelines for pornography; you know when you see it, and provides ratings for same. Pretty sure that MPAA gives an automatic X rating if there is unsimulated sex. Either way, MPAA is curating the film industry, not Apple, and HlBO surely is curating its HBO NOW available on iTunes Store. There is wide public acceptance of the MPAA. Buy it, don't buy it.
Apple's decision is that they don't want to be in the business of curating content on Apps. It's pass/fail to Apple's standard. I would suggest that apps such as Netflix have wide public acceptance, brands even, curating their own content, as do Showtime, Cinemax, and others, so Apple doesn't have to curate for them.
As there are other venues for watching actual pornography on iDevices, I don't see why Apple is faulted for having an extremely tight standard; no pornography in apps, and their definition of pornography is pretty definitive. If that is hypocrisy to some, then there are a world of other ecosystems that might be more to your liking.
This is a fricking drive by diary BTW. I would expect it of BGR.
Here's a tip; watch Garfunkel and Oates on Netflix. They have a very insightful, sarcastic, and funny take on all this culture crap.
"I wouldn't touch your dick if I'd been poisoned / And the antidote was in your sperm"
Comments
Technically everyone gets into this world thru both sex and violence, lots of blood, tearing flesh, screaming.
So while the producers of the Fast & Furious created depictions of violence for art and entertainment, you are responsible for real causing actual physical pain, trauma, and suffering to another person just to get air into your greedy little lungs.
Dominic Toretto holds the moral high ground here. :smokey:
So exactly what is the difference between men and women, ya know... between the 'sexes'? Seems like nature has divided our species into two groups with differing naughty bits, and elaborate sensory systems whose specific function is to detect those interesting differences. So we're all sex objects, just with varying degrees of popularity.
I don't understand how people work this into outrage. The idea that porn degrades women is as fantastical as the porn scenarios themselves, it just mindless moralizing fodder for those entertained by prudish depictions and concepts, mental masturbation for Puritan fetishists. :smokey:
are you kidding me? get over yourself.
it's not like Safari has never been used to view HARDCORE porn.. and you can't even delete Safari.
if you think HBOs content is "porn" - you need to spend more time with Safari.
I would say that I appreciate that Apple restricts adult content apps, because the nature of that business would open the doors to a flood of questionable apps that met the strict rules Apple already imposes but otherwise offered no meaningful content, and there's enough of that. Of course if the App Store could be restricted by adult content, I don't really see the issue -- all of that gets filtered out of my search view. But there does seem to be a hazy standard as to what crosses the line for Apple. Dating apps for instance require "tasteful" profile photos of their members, which cannot even be suggestive of sexuality, and so the HBO softporn programming sort of flies in the face of that. Perhaps the difference is with a movie you have to watch it to get to the "offensive" material, whereas the apps potentially present it on the surface.
AI, please mark this article an opinion piece. Was this article given editorial review?
I do not know why we can't have an "opt-in" for adult content. If you don't dig through 4 menus and select the setting, you never know it's there. It could even be tied to an AppleID that has been verified to belong to an adult.
Cone on Apple, it's about time we grew up on this one.
It has to do with the overall intention of each service or application.
There's a big difference between a streaming TV service of a known brand like HBO (or Cinemax or Showtime or whatever) and an application. With a service like HBO, you know exactly what you're getting and most of it is not about porn (or erotica).
There's also a difference because 90% or more of HBO is not erotica (Game of Thrones and the like aside) but 90% of a porn-related application might be porn.
Most people don't think of HBO or Showtime as porn channels in the same way as they think about Penthouse or possibly Playboy as porn channels. The apps would (or could) be more akin to a Penthouse channel.
I can see why Apple would want to limit the App Store from being overwhelmed with porn. It would make the entire site look trashy (although I suppose it could be segregated). The inclusion of a network like HBO, in spite of its trashy soft-core "erotica" (it's really not porn), doesn't make Apple TV look trashy.
And there's another difference: although the program referred to was soft-core, my understanding of the porn industry is that they shoot multiple versions at the same time, including hard core versions. So the people in those shoots are having actual sex and because of that, one could maintain that there's a level of exploitation of the actors that goes beyond the level of exploitation in a show like "Game of Thrones", where there's no actual sex act taking place.
Furthermore, Apple has always included R-rated movies that might have nudity and sex scenes, so it's not like they're really censoring anything.
I really don't understand the anger expressed in the OP. There's plenty of places to get porn if you want it. IMO, I'm glad it's not there in the App store.
Actually the rationale is quite simple if you follow the money. Yes, to those in the US the App store restrictions seem kind of pointless when Safari already offers a much larger conduit to porn than any app store app could provide. But Apple also operates in countries that practice censorship. Authoritarian regimes like China can and do filter what people access through Safari without any direct involvement of or impact to Apple. But since they cannot snoop on App Store connections (at least not since Apple upgraded to https (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/03/09/apple-finally-adopts-https-for-the-app-store-here-is-why-it-matters/)), they could and probably would ban Apple from operating unless it policed the App Store according to the party's agenda.
The Article mention 500PX and Vine. Those apps don't contain any porn or objectionable content, they are merely conduits, so such apps don't get around country censorship filters. There is therefor no rationale for objecting to such apps on the basis you describe.
I live in Ireland. This backward country still has censorship laws and a list of banned books. Should such books be kept out of iTunes just because this piddling little country is full of self-righteous catholics?
That it destroys marriages, trust, and self-respect has been the experience of a great many people, including some I know.
I think it is nearly impossible for Apple to be completely consistent regarding what they allow and don't allow in this area. I suspect that HBO is allowed because 98% of what they offer is not porn of any kind. It is also not the primary purpose of HBO to cater to people who are looking for porn. Someone used Playboy as an example. I think it would be reasonable say that Playboy's primary purpose is to create material for adults and adult men more specifically. At the risk of being accused of trolling I will throw this out. On my Huffington Post app yesterday I got to watch a surveillance video of a 23 year old man punching a 4 year old child in the face knocking the child to the floor. Why is no one offended at being shown that? We should also not forget that porn = $$$.
The author was making a generalization about porn in theory. There is nothing wrong with the idea. As always the problems arise in the implementation and the abuse when it's put into practice by people. Should we throw out all porn because some of it exploits women or some of it leads to aggressive behavior? This is no different than the their deal with HBO or the App Store. No one has a problem with Apple wanting to police the App Store so that we all get quality content that is consistent. But it is impossible to create a blanket guideline that covers every single image, movie, app etc. so Apple must go through every submission. Even Google has begun policing the Play Store and cracking down on apps for their content.
Just google Adult Roku and you will see there are so many ways to watch full HD XXX content on Roku. The Apple TV would be the last device you would ever need for watching Porn. 8-) lol
Maybe if at the end of the people having sex they die in various exteme violent ways Apple and all the people here against porn would be okay with it.
MPAA Film Ratings meet Supreme Court guidelines for pornography; you know when you see it, and provides ratings for same. Pretty sure that MPAA gives an automatic X rating if there is unsimulated sex. Either way, MPAA is curating the film industry, not Apple, and HlBO surely is curating its HBO NOW available on iTunes Store. There is wide public acceptance of the MPAA. Buy it, don't buy it.
Apple's decision is that they don't want to be in the business of curating content on Apps. It's pass/fail to Apple's standard. I would suggest that apps such as Netflix have wide public acceptance, brands even, curating their own content, as do Showtime, Cinemax, and others, so Apple doesn't have to curate for them.
As there are other venues for watching actual pornography on iDevices, I don't see why Apple is faulted for having an extremely tight standard; no pornography in apps, and their definition of pornography is pretty definitive. If that is hypocrisy to some, then there are a world of other ecosystems that might be more to your liking.
This is a fricking drive by diary BTW. I would expect it of BGR.
Here's a tip; watch Garfunkel and Oates on Netflix. They have a very insightful, sarcastic, and funny take on all this culture crap.
"I wouldn't touch your dick if I'd been poisoned / And the antidote was in your sperm"
The larger hypocrisy is that our Victorian upbringing shuns nudity while glamorizing military and killing in general.
I remember reading, I can't recall exactly who wrote it, but paraphrasing...
"Show someone kissing a woman's breast, you get an "R" rating. Show the breast being blown off with a shotgun, you get a PG13."