[ifqwz]

Platforms such as Telegram have to make it impossible to access certain channels/groups/bots when you use an iphone or they risk getting deleted from the app store. nsfw channels on discord are also inaccessible from iphones.

Apps such as gab were banned completely for not complying.

This is just a few examples of apps that I know of (I don't use that many) --- there probably are many more examples that I'm not aware of.

[DoctorOW]

Are those Telegram examples also NSFW? I don't see the meaningful distinction between NSFW content and porn.

[snovv_crash]

There are a lot of other NSFW topics, like gore, bondage, gambling, organization of union activity or illegal protests, etc. Apple only specifically bans porn though, because of American puritan morals, I guess.

[msla]

> I don't see the meaningful distinction between NSFW content and porn.

Abstract: Pornography is reasonably well-understood by honest adults. "NSFW" is a bullshit term that's expanded based on how criticism-averse the host is, and how effectively the assholes can come out to shit on minorities.

Queer content is often marked "NSFW" simply for being queer, even if it isn't pornographic as a rational adult would understand the term.^1 Saying "NSFW" or "inappropriate" content is being removed is a typical content-free claim from companies that don't know, and don't care, how much queer content will be removed and how much will never be created due to the chilling effect.

^1 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444820904362

Of course, add to this the usual tactic of people insisting that the very existence of queer people is "inappropriate" or "NSFW" and the host is opening itself up to a shitstorm it is likely to resolve by increasing its content controls and doing further damage to queer expression on the platform.

[DoctorOW]

I've heard about this phenomenon before. While ultimately I wish I had found a better way to phrase this in the comment you quote, I'll make my clarifications here.

A) I'm not defending the outright removal of porn/NSFW content from Apple App Stores or other sources.

B) I don't see a meaningful distinction in the way the terms are USED. LGBTQ relationships are typically seen as more sexually explicit and thus, more pornographic (as your source attests). Calling that material "porn" or "NSFW" is ultimately meaningless.

EDIT: Thank you to the commentor who chose to prove my point as I was writing it. :P

[cykros]

I'm perfectly okay with removal of whatever from the app stores. The issue is locking a device to one particular app store in the first place. For some reason people keep giving these lunatics money -- but perhaps if they overplay their hand and get more restrictive of what content they allow, a sane market response can provide the more sensible solution.

Google has the Play Store, and it doesn't allow content it doesn't agree with, but at the end of the day, I can go grab it from F-droid or wherever else it may be hosted. The idea that you have to force your users into your walled garden, rather than offering it and treating them like the adults that, you know, OWN the device, is despicable. There are plenty of things about iPhones that at times appear superior (such as not relying as heavily on the advertising model), but at the end of the day, this persistent hostility towards customers is why I will not buy a single thing from this company.

[ifqwz]

When I said "wrong thoughts" I was thinking politics - far left and far right, generally. But yes, also porn, copyright, etc.

[DoctorOW]

It feels like your definition of "wrong thoughts" combines the legal content discussed in the OP with calls for political violence and intellectual property violations. While I agree both are removed by Apple I think the author's choice to separate legal content from illegal content was intentional.

[ifqwz]

One of their victories is you equating "far left/right" to "calls for political violence"

[DoctorOW]

In my experience, when someone talks about "political ideas that are censored" they mean:

1. Ideas that are directly trying to silence others or obscure empirical reality.

2. Ideas that actually can be said but are marketed as being "censored" or "counter culture" to give weight to a narrative.

3. Vague gestures to some other idea that is supposedly neither 1 or 2 but is unable to provide any evidence

I would love to add a fourth entry but in the same way it's inaccurate to assume this is 1 (Apple's "victory", apparently), it would be equally inaccurate to not categorize your views in 3 until you were able to provide specific evidence.

[millzlane]

Good thing they can't ban a web page.