Ohio, the famous Supreme Court decision on obscenity where Justice Potter Stewart stated he could not define pornography, but rather that “I know it when I see it.” It’s hard to believe that this is not considered pornographic by Apple but this is.
The end result is something saliently pointed to by The Guardian: an iOS app by very real porn star Rocco Siffredi was just released, an app that allows you to insert your face into an image of a woman being taken from behind and share it.Īpple even bothers in that article to refer to Jacobellis v.
This means a lot of different opinions of what is “excessively objectionable” get to say what gets through and what doesn’t. With that much input to go through, it’s a problem solved by throwing more bodies at it. That’s too many to keep up with and subject each submission to in-depth analysis. In 2012, they got 26,000 a week, and by 2013, they were adding almost that many per month. This is a superficial rejection (or so we can assume, since we have no idea how Apple really feels about it other than “no”), but with the number of app submissions Apple gets a day. That’s the first problem with this censorship. What I’m trying to say is context is important. Now it is sexual in nature and liable to be rejected from the App Store as well. Half a tetromino, right? Now we give them names like Betty and Bob and play this music. Consider an image of two colors squares on top of each other. With context, it is a contributing factor to the dehumanizing sensation that makes Papers, Please so affecting. Without context, it is certainly an app that provides images of digitized pixel nudity. “Excessively objectionable.” Both of those are independently dependent on perspective. 16.1 of their guidelines state the following: “Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected.” Those two words. Apple has very clearly stated guidelines, but there are significant gray areas that allow for things to get muddied. The most obvious, of course, is the opaque review process. guaranteed interoperability), but it is also has huge drawbacks. For the longest time, Apple has been viewed as a walled garden, holding tight to restrictions regarding its and others’ content when offered through or on their platforms like the App Store and iOS devices. Firstly by their methodologies, it is frustrating. It is, in fact, Apple’s application of it that is the problem. While important, that’s not the main problem with this censorship. Nathan Grayson over at Kotaku actually has already written about this, if you want to read about it. While you can still play and “enjoy” the game without it (the original had the ability to partially clothe people), a substantial gut-punch is removed in the process. You’re violating precious privacy-personal privacy, too, one of the few allowed in Arstotzka-just to shuffle more sheep through the line and get more money. It is also a sharp, pungent reminder of what you’re doing. The nudity that Apple refers to comes up once you start using body scanners to determine if immigrants coming through your border station are hiding dangerous items, like bombs or guns. It forces you to push aside your humanity-your empathy, your emotions-and do your job.
If you recall from 2013, I really enjoyed Papers, Please. Apple rejected that build for containing "pornographic content.".
The iPad version has no full nudity option for the search scanner photos. Apple’s reasoning? “Pornographic content.”
The iPad version will have actually already come out by the time you read this, but there is one significant change from the original PC release: there is no full nudity option. Just yesterday, Lucas Pope experienced this firsthand as he prepares to release Papers, Please for Apple’s App Store. Understanding makes us tick, but it also makes us unravel. Or worse than that, the decision turns from a faith in logic to an arbitrary admonishment, a lack of consistency. (Like, seriously, don’t stick that fork in the toaster.) But it becomes frustrating for the kid when an explanation doesn’t follow the denial. Why can’t you stay up to watch one more episode of ? Because I said so. Why can’t you buy this book at the book fair? Because I said so. “Because I said so.” That is the hefty hammer of rule wielded by many parents and suffered by many children.