Update: Comixology revealed that it had in fact self-censored and Apple put it right. I write about this in a new post that also talks about how Apple’s silence regarding the press isn’t helping matters these days.

Earlier today, I wrote about Apple’s latest slice of censorship. In short, a couple of small images of gay sex in an issue of Saga meant Apple banned the comic. Initially, I was undecided about the incident—Apple has recently been heavily criticised regarding kids getting hold of iOS devices and doing things with them that they shouldn’t. However, it turns out that previous issues of Saga have included similarly explicit images (just of straight sex) and so the company at best comes out of this looking inconsistent; at worst, Apple’s censorship appears to be homophobic.

Ultimately, if Apple comments (which isn’t likely), it will most likely revert to two of its common arguments when it comes to content for sale and what won’t be allowed past its gatekeepers:

1. Apple will “know it when it sees it” regarding what should or should not be censored.
2. Certain types of material are not fit for consumption by children and should therefore not be available within apps.

The first of those things is no longer good enough—not that it really ever was. Apple’s rules need to be more clearly defined. The second was always nonsensical, and is best summed up by Apple’s comments on rejecting the Endgame: Syria strategy title:

We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store.

Why are apps subject to more stringent restrictions than books? In the specific case of Saga, why is a comic within an app that includes a store subject to more stringent restrictions than a comic within iBooks (effectively also an app with a store)? It smacks of Apple not considering the long game and letting personal prejudices regarding app content (i.e. extreme violence = OK; porn = bad; political satire = very bad) get in the way of objectivity.

Most often, the argument then dovetails into the inaccurate but often stated reasoning that comics and games are primarily for children, and therefore apps in particular should be clean of such ‘evils’ as porn or ‘difficult’ humour/statement such as satire. But if the net result of this is people not being able to access certain types of content in apps, but being able to access it elsewhere—even in one of Apple’s own stores—it makes a mockery of any system Apple’s set in place, and it suggests one form of media is less important than another.

I think this all points to the fact Apple really needs to face up to iOS devices needing parental controls that are far easier to access and much more granular in terms of what they enable you to do. In iOS 6, a parent can visit Settings and go to General > Restrictions and disable a small number of Apple applications and purchase actions, along with defining content that has specific ratings applied. What’s needed in iOS 7 is a massive button that a parent can prod that in an instant blocks everything under a user-defined age limit. In addition to this, a more granular ‘kid mode’ could be implemented, building on the current Restrictions settings, providing the means for parents to enable/disable on a per-app basis. This should then be a top-level setting, not buried half-way down the screen in General.

I’ll be surprised if Apple does this, and as I’ve previously said, it still wouldn’t stop tat like the Daily Mail running stories about how ‘evil Apple traumatised our little baby’ when a kid gets handed an iPad that the parents didn’t bother to put into ‘kid mode’ first. However, it would make the tools for parental-based content management more prominent, and potentially enable Apple to relax a bit on what it allowed within apps. Without this, Apple merely continues to bury itself in terrible press, becoming a magnet for criticism surrounding inconsistent censorship, puritanical views, and, worse, homophobia—intentional or otherwise.