Just because everybody with similar platforms do it, doesn't make it right. And I do not agree about those statements being CYA - the worst thing you can get is an environment where the rules are selectively enforced, based on a decision-making process that will never be transparent.
Oh so content-makers are complaining that Youtube steals their traffic? Clearly there's enough content on Youtube to justify a ban under any of those rules and Google is not exactly on Microsoft's list of favorites.
Let's also remember the apps banned by Apple for being "offensive". Were they obnoxious, definitely, to some people at least. However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law.
>However that's censorship. And it's OK as long as controlled platforms are a minority, but when it becomes a monopolizing problem leaving consumers with no choices left, then it should really be against the law.
I have trouble accepting this argument. Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon are not preventing the production of that content. They're simply refusing to sell it, which is their prerogative.
That's not censorship, at all. It's no different from any of the major big-box chains refusing to sell things because of content.
The issue isn't so much that they won't be selling it, the issue is that you won't be allowed to have it on your computer at all.
Since people are going to increasingly consume things on computers this provides a level of censorship power that would disgust people if it were proposed by a government.
It's worth pointing out that Google has roughly the same requirements in their Google Play content requirements( http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html ), as do Apple and Amazon.
Google's ratings requirements are potentially even more stringent, especially because they're in plain English.