If you want to make the choice to stop watching porn, that is fine. If you want to use software like this and you want to ask your spouse to help, that is fine.
But your marketing, your google play listing that I quoted it is not you making the choice. It is someone else "protecting" you and making the choice.
Quoting an exact quote from your google play listing. The very first sentence:
"Truple protects your loved ones against porn & other online filth. It holds your loved ones accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots."
"Truple holds YOU accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots."
But at this time, there is one story of what this app does here (hacker news) and a completely different story from what is being told on the website and marketing.
The other apps that they are saying had no issues with approval, follow the story that is being told here.
I don't think it changes the problematic nature of the app. But they are claiming to be the same as the other app but there is a dramatic difference in how the capabilities of the app is communicated to Apple and users.
It's not two stories... I include customer reviews on my landing page that show spouses, individuals, and parents feedback because all benefit from it.
The Google Play app description is adjusted to be more in alignment with Google Play Developer Agreement policies.
To clarify, keeping Google, Apple, and everyone else happy with the wording in the marketing seems to demand walking a razers edge. I've done my best to comply appropriately for each platform. It's a disservice to the conversation for you to pull in the Google Play listing, make accusations about me/Truple as a result, and not have the full picture. I've shared more in this post than I originally cared to in order to provide the bigger picture. I'm not trying to hide anything here, but there are reasons other than malicious intent for why things are worded the way they are and instead of leaping to those conclusions you could instead ask why.
It is 100% 2 stories. Over and over again here you are saying "personal accountability" or similar. Which on paper is fine. If you really truly voluntarily want to do this... great!
But do you not understand while personal accountability fine... your marketing is calling out spouses and parents reviews! Nothing about either of those being there says personal accountability. if you truly actually believed in personal accountability you could only show reviews from them, not from others!
To clarify. If my spouse is the one that thinks that this app "saved my marriage" as your reviews really like to say. There is something... very very wrong. If I feel the need to review it because I felt like I needed help. That is fine! Do you see the difference?!?
If a device does not provide this option for compromised security, it is by default censorship.
See https://web.archive.org/web/20200216145020/https://play.goog...
My takeaway is that I’m beginning to think that Apple was correct in blocking your app.
So right there it's admitting that the intended use is to spy on someone else (in this case, "your kids"). I'm with you here. I just don't believe OP on this one.
Apple thinks this is a spying app, and they don't want it on their platform.
"Online filth" is in your website header, so your kinda focusing on them. I looked at the reviews and your most recent one continues to reinforce something about "filth" https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.camhart.ne...
As far as not being used "on" someone. Again you have reviews from Spouses and Parents which would imply they are being used "on" someone. Something I noticed the other apps focus on is individual accountability. I see almost no reference to spouses or parents there. Just having some you trust to be accountable too.
Your first line on google play says "Truple protects your loved ones against porn & other online filth. It holds your loved ones accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots." How exactly is that not it being "used on anyone"?
Your marketing around this tells a story of surveillance trying to pass it off as some "good" where accountability is a secondary issue. While here you are focused on accountability.
And personally I have to wonder if Apple takes this into account when approving apps (which I assume they do)