However, a reason to leave the rules unclarified is that parties who want to look the other way are able to. I don't think it'll make much of a difference in this case, though.
Well that's kinda tough now. A lot of companies still do their own comms on Twitter.
For the same reason we have spotify blocked at work, but not youtube because we publish our comms there. Which results in... people listening to music videos and wasting a ton of bandwidth for no reason (because they're downloading the video just for the music). A bit stupid but the powers that be are unwilling to unblock spotify.
But I don't think most people at the company care, they just want to listen and take whatever they know. I don't think most of them even know youtube music exists. Spotify is really popular here (Europe) but it's banned like I mentioned.
"can" - I'm personally very disappointed with YouTube music. The playlist/recommendations are even worse than what Youtube alone will give you AND you have to pay $15/month for it.
Are you sure about that? Is it a recent rule change? I know a person whose app got permanently denied because it had "adult content" in it. It's definitely possible that there is more nuance that I'm not aware of, or that they changed the rules
IIRC Discord gets around this by having a setting that needs to be enabled from another device/browser to be able to access NSFW servers on iOS. I think Pixiv (maybe Reddit too?) has something similar.
So I'm going to guess the workaround is that Apple requires NSFW content to not be accessible as a default, but does not get in the way for the content being accessible via some form of external switch. The 'external' requirement makes me think that maybe it's about shifting some sort of perceived liability? X might have to add a similar option I guess.
You just need a toggle to comply with the rules, so that the user decides what they’ll see. One example is Flickr. Another is Tumblr. They both have toggles for explicit content.