"While Apple does waive the CTF for the first million installs of an app, this does not apply to app marketplaces themselves. This means every download of AltStore costs us €0.50, period. This is clearly unsustainable for a free app supported entirely by donations — especially considering we already have millions of users — and we’ve seen a lot of discussion hypothesizing how we could possibly afford this.
To us though, the answer is obvious…we can’t! So instead, we’re going to charge €1.50/year for AltStore PAL and pass the CTF onto our users."
So Apple's rules either require a deep pocketed free to play peddler like Epic, or push small independent stores into subscriptions.
This is still malicious compliance.
Not to mention that I never wanted "alternative stores" but sideloading... why would I have any store control what I install?
Apple's stance that this is a shocking development, and previously the iPhone was some sort of porn-free zone is... strange.
Obviously, there's a web browser, but let's ignore that for now. More notably in this "we make you safe from porn inside apps" framing, there's incredibly prominent apps like Reddit or X, both of which are lousy with porn. If Apple thinks that porn is bad and worthy of being blocked from its store, they should take a look at that. This is just wildly hypocritical otherwise.
Are they doing anything with the on-device "Hey, this image someone texted you may contain nudity, are you sure you want to see it?" sort of filters with what's displayed in apps, or is this a parental control option?
Mostly, they're in the App Store with age ratings of 17+, so parental controls will block them out. No idea how that system interacts with third party app stores, either -- but if it doesn't work there, that was very much Apple's implementation-choice.
One important thing to note that isn't mentioned in the article: you have to manually add the porn app's source URL to the AltStore before it'll show up there. Because you have to browse to the (adult) porn app website in Safari beforehand to get the link, it isn't any easier to access porn this way than it is by typing "porn" into the search box.
Set up parental controls on your children's devices! Apple cannot protect them from the preinstalled Safari app (one of the most popular porn apps in the world) unless you take initiative. You can also block the installation of all apps outside of the App Store using parental controls.
> Alternative app marketplaces are required to pay a Core Technology Fee for each install
> Apple charges apps a Core Technology Fee (CTF) for each install after their first one million installs, but the fees don't kick in right away for small developers.
Still ridiculous apple got away with this one. The entire point is to free users and developers from Apple's tyranny.
I'm sure enough that Apple won't get away with it, that I'm willing to bet money on it. The arms of regulation moves slowly, but they do move. Wouldn't be the first time someone got fined for not following the spirit of the regulation and trying to work around it.
Why would alternatives be any better? It is clearly in the vendor's interest to lock down their platforms. Or are you talking about an open source alternative?
I hope you don't consider Apple's acquiescence to government surveillance tyranny then. After all, you've got so many options like Android, Librem or jailbreaking.
The government using the power of the law to invade the privacy of its citizens, against the overwhelming preference of its citizens and international human rights norms... is abusive. It isn't tyranny on its own, but it should be avoided.
Not liking how a company provides a service, when there are other companies providing the same service? That's not tyranny. That's not like a government threatening you with jail or violence.
If you think it is then the time has come, IMO, to log off for a while and get back in touch with the world outside of the internet and tech.
I didn't say that, I said that talking about tyranny in this context is divorced from reality, and it is. I'm not even engaging with the "duopoly" thing, I know how hopeless a conversation like that. I just wish that people could represent their desires and complaints on this topic like rational adults.
Do you understand how me saying "Tyranny" and you responding "Duopoly" isn't really a conversation or even debate? We're literally talking about different things.
So what exactly do you mean by "Tyranny"? I mean that customers do not have a choice and can't affect the market, due to high entry barriers and the presence of monopoly elements.
Still, neither duopoly nor even monopoly really amount to "tyranny". When was the last time some duopolist threw you into a GULAG, or their death squads slaughtered people willy-nilly in the streets?
Not sure I get the downvotes, this is a core tenant of evangelical conservatism which is now the dominant force of the GOP. Republicans might have a big tent but everyone else is getting squeezed out. The evolution of the US right has been happening since the tea party. It's been sad to see political Republicanism die out, they were a good counterbalance to center-left Democrats.
I assume if you mention US political party names on HN, you get a pile of downvotes immediately, valid point or not.
I'm not aware they're trying to make it actively illegal, though. Just at least marginally age gated to adults, which is far from the current situation of "If you have a browser and can type something that a search engine can correct into a porn search, you can access as much extreme content as you want, as long as you want, from wherever you want!"
The average age of boys being exposed to porn is about 13, and the bottom end of the bell curve is disturbing.
Age Gating is very often the "foot in the door" towards the goal of total prohibition. This is a tried and true strategy for normalizing banning things that were not previously banned: Initially get the public to accept it "for the children." Once you have the technical infra in place to ban XYZ for some users, you are 99% of the way (and one stroke of the pen) towards effectively banning it outright.
what else is disturbing to 13-year old boys? lets give a list here and see whether that is age-proof in ANY way/shape/form?
while I do not disagree with you in general the current “war on porn”
in the America is a political theatre. no one gives two shits what might be disturbing to 13-year boys, it is all just political theatre
> The average age of boys being exposed to porn is about 13, and the bottom end of the bell curve is disturbing.
The bottom end of the bell curve is a distraction. I remember kids sneaking porno mags into their backpacks in middle school and charging kids dimes and nickles to take a look. I watched Indiana Jones, James Bond and other pulpy films that pile sex onto the narrative with no adult supervision. I read books with chapters dedicated to graphic sexual depictions and violent conflict before I turned 15.
The problem, as always, comes down to parenting. If you don't trust your child's own authority to select content that is healthy for them, then it's your responsibility to hire a babysitter or deliberately prevent them from using the internet. It's like complaining that your kid might cut off a finger because you gave them a jigsaw.
And you see no functional difference between "peaking at a still image in a magazine, which even the hardcore versions are tame by modern internet porn standards" and "an infinite stream of videos of whatever sounds interesting at the moment"?
They're not the slightest bit the same in terms of impact on human brains.
Earlier you wrote "The average age of boys being exposed to porn is about 13".
Now you say "infinite stream of whatever sounds interesting at the moment".
Those are two quite different things.
To start with, just because a kid saw pornography doesn't mean it was wanted. From a 2007 paper, "Forty-two percent of youth Internet users had been exposed to online pornography in the past year. Of those, 66% reported only unwanted exposure." (From "Unwanted and Wanted Exposure to Online Pornography in a National Sample of Youth Internet Users")
In quite a few countries, the way to watch porn as a teen is to set your alarm for 1am and watch soft porn on regular broadcast TV.
I see the difference, I just don't see how to stop it. If you want your kid to not have access to infinite videos where they choose what plays next, don't give them access to the internet, period. Problem solved, I just stopped them from learning swear words and atheism too.
There's just no situation where you give kids access to the internet while also removing porn from it. It just doesn't work like that. It's either that all internet binging is harmful, or none is. No law will ever succeed at depriving kids from using the internet to watch sex videos. We know this because you can't outlaw kids from watching sex scenes in movies or sex chapters in books, either.
every “what is good for the kids” problem is solved in the same way - good parenting. ban books - political theatre. ban nudity/porn - political theatre.
and why focus on sex? if I give my kid unsupervised access to the internet she can be subjected to endless stream of beheading videos and much much worse than that… I would HOPE AND PRAY she watches porn vs. other shit that is out there is kids are allowed unsupervised access
The experiment of "all the porn for all the people with no limits" has been tried, and the results have been absolutely abysmal for humans.
Beyond the abuse and sex trafficking ties (or the right at the edge of the legal definition but certainly not entirely consensual), revenge porn, and such, the impacts of porn on humans have been exceedingly harmful. There's the whole "PIED" (porn induced erectile dysfunction) thing, where a boy or young man's brain has been so wired from porn that they can't function with an actual woman, you've got disturbing increases in physical damage to people (mostly young women) from boys trying what they've seen in porn, etc.
It's not harmless, on either end of the process, and as far as age gating, I'm not aware of any of the porn sites even trying to do anything until legally required. A 10 year old with a smartphone has no trouble finding things way over their head.
So, yeah. The experiment has been tried and found wanting. I'm perfectly fine with them trying to make it illegal, or at least "radically harder to access than it is currently," which is "zero roadblocks at all."
Society, and humans, were rather better off when you had to walk through the curtain into the back corner of the video store, or get something from the papered off magazine rack at a seedy gas station, than having it available, in total privacy, 24/7.
Were I to spend half an hour providing a set of links, would it actually change anyone's opinion on the matter? It seems to be the sort of viewpoint that isn't easily changed by a few research papers.
> Were I to spend half an hour providing a set of links, would it actually change anyone's opinion on the matter?
I'd say I disagree with "The experiment of "all the porn for all the people with no limits" has been tried, and the results have been absolutely abysmal for humans" and I'm open to changing my opinion about it, granted the papers/links are from good sources, author has some sort of credentials, the methodology makes sense, they're transparent and the results are (somewhat) reproducible.
On a topic that is emotionally loaded, personal, and increasingly political?
I question if having provided a few links would change anyone's opinion, yes. I started out planning to add a pile of them, but it's hard to find anything that comes across as "neutral" - either the sources are very pro-porn sources arguing that there's no problem, or they're very anti-porn sources - anti-trafficking organizations, web filter/accountability software, etc.
I'm not sure the endless stories of how porn has screwed up young men on Reddit will really change minds either. Perhaps if someone is on the fence, the stories and encouragement of getting over it will help, but that's not really the point being discussed.
So, no, I didn't think it was worth the effort to do a heavily researched set of links on this topic. Sorry.
This is not the sort of topic where that happens. Everybody is aware that if you spin the data this way or that on these sort of topics (broadly - social science with strong preformed views that tends to directly apply to oneself) that you can prove whatever you want, and all a plurality one way or the other demonstrates is the trending bias among those publishing in such a field.
When people do change their minds on such topics it tends to be from lived wisdom rather than learned knowledge. Or starting to see such things through the perspective of your children, rather than yourself.
I'm not using Google, but in DuckDuckGo, "Safe Search = Moderate" is the default, which does what you want. Also you can tweak your search URL making it "strict" if you want. I agree with such approach.
erotika as art form/expression isn’t diametrically opposed to porn industry, but it’s close to being…
pornography industry is evil as hell and cannot be reformed/regulated into an acceptable state, and actively prevents ppl from developing a healthy sense of sexuality/eroticism
genuinely not sure if alligning w ppl who want to ban pornography for religious/conservative reasons is a good idea, but it’s better than doing nothing i suspect…
Unfortunately, for legislators to ban porn without breaking the constitution, they'd have to change the First Amendment.
And there is a process for that! IMHO the constitution is due for an overhaul anyway - perhaps while they're at it, the legislators could also sort out those pesky school shootings with some tweaks to the Second Amendment?
There's a built in process to revise it that has been used repeatedly throughout the USA's history. Just don't assume that process would always go the way you'd prefer, different people have different opinions.
Though they've been somewhat lacking since the 1970s.
Poor innovation-less EU resident here, with PAL AltStore installed. Is it actually available? I don't find it while searching, or scrolling through the list of all the apps available in AltStore (a whole 5 of them). If it's in a external source, could you even say it's "In AltStore"?
The EU regulation is to prevent Apple from having a monopoly over mobile software distribution.
The UK (not the EU) wants to just force Apple to backdoor iCloud. Insamuch as this backdoor involves any on-device code, it's the standard iCloud daemon (ubiquityd, AFAIK) that runs so long as you have an Apple Account sign-in. (can you even use an Apple device without one?) There isn't going to be a mandatory "UK Surveillance" app that everyone has to install, it's all going to be done server-side without your knowledge.
If your goal is to spy on people's phones, shipping an app is not a great way to do that. You have to trick the user into granting specific permissions, use fingerprinting to correlate different data streams, and hope Apple doesn't catch and ban you. Furthermore, third-party app distribution means you have to convince your user to install random shit from the web, which lots of people are afraid of. And finally, Apple still reviews third-party distributed apps and still has the right to reject malware. The only control they ceded is that now apps they don't want on the App Store for non-technical reasons (e.g. they're a brand risk or the developers refuse to pay their tithes[0]) can live on AltStore PAL. But there's no additional spying being enabled that wouldn't have been available had Apple not been forced to respect third-party app stores.
[0] Note that if you do use third-party distribution you still have to pay a "core technology fee" per install, so you still have to pay a tithe, but it's a different and potentially smaller one.
"They've utilized EU regulations to prevent Apple from abusing its power that's why I'm going to bring in a completely unrelated bit of news from a country famously not in the EU"
"While Apple does waive the CTF for the first million installs of an app, this does not apply to app marketplaces themselves. This means every download of AltStore costs us €0.50, period. This is clearly unsustainable for a free app supported entirely by donations — especially considering we already have millions of users — and we’ve seen a lot of discussion hypothesizing how we could possibly afford this.
To us though, the answer is obvious…we can’t! So instead, we’re going to charge €1.50/year for AltStore PAL and pass the CTF onto our users."
So Apple's rules either require a deep pocketed free to play peddler like Epic, or push small independent stores into subscriptions.
This is still malicious compliance.
Not to mention that I never wanted "alternative stores" but sideloading... why would I have any store control what I install?