←back to thread

Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

(github.com)
946 points giuliomagnifico | 4 comments | 01 Jan 21 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.69s | source
Show context
rgovostes ◴[01 Jan 21 19:43 UTC] No.25606126[source]▶
Well-written argument for the app reviewers to get bent, especially the highlighted examples of other apps that show the rule is clearly applied inconsistently.

Apple's App Store moderation is embarrassing. They routinely fail to catch harmful junk—I've shut down a few top-grossing bogus antivirus apps for Mac, and the publisher of Untitled Goose Game routinely posts screenshots of clones that are trying to make money off confused users.

They've banned apps like Phone Story and a drone strike tracker for being "objectionable and crude," yet they don't apply any content moderation to the Book Store or to Music or TV (or to Safari for that matter). They've yet to provide a cogent justification for why they're inconsistent on this.

replies(8): >>25606185 #>>25606230 #>>25606388 #>>25606582 #>>25606607 #>>25606915 #>>25607134 #>>25610991 #
qppo ◴[01 Jan 21 19:48 UTC] No.25606185[source]▶
I don't necessarily agree that TV/Music/books need more moderation in terms of censorship (and they do have plenty of that), but more curation. Apple TV is a good example of that, it's highly curated.

Books are really bad though. Amazon is no better, neither have any modicum of curation or taste when it comes to their bestsellers lists. The New York Times doesn't put salacious romance novels at the top no matter how many copies sell, yet Amazon and Apple Books would lead you to believe there's nothing else being published.

The same goes for the App Store. It doesn't need moderation by way of censorship, it just needs tasteful, manual curation.

replies(3): >>25606218 #>>25606253 #>>25606373 #
1. rgovostes ◴[01 Jan 21 19:50 UTC] No.25606218[source]▶
I mean the opposite—not that they should censor/moderate their other stores, but why are they hypocritical (edit: or inconsistent, if you prefer) in saying that certain content is harmful when consumed as an app, but not as a book or movie that they are happy to sell to you?
replies(2): >>25606336 #>>25607850 #
2. Bud ◴[01 Jan 21 20:00 UTC] No.25606336[source]▶
That's not hypocritical; it's surprising you can't see that.

An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way.

Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies.

It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).

replies(1): >>25606450 #
3. rgovostes ◴[01 Jan 21 20:09 UTC] No.25606450[source]▶
> An app is software that can be harmful to your device.

I'm only discussing moderation for content, rather than moderation for security, privacy, stability, etc.

> actively censor books (which isn't really feasible)

I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that?

Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary.

See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS...

4. qppo ◴[01 Jan 21 22:23 UTC] No.25607850[source]▶
I think the simplest explanation is that they don't have automated review processes for media like they do for software and Apple isn't a single person making decisions about what they sell on every app all the time.

That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.