Dear AppleVis Community,
We wanted to take a moment to share an update to our Forum Guidelines surrounding the use of profanity on AppleVis. As of today (01/13/2026), we have made the following change:
- While discouraged, limited use of mild profanity—defined as non-sexual, non-graphic language generally considered acceptable for a broad audience—may be permitted when used sparingly for emphasis or expression. Such language must not be used to harass, intimidate, demean, or degrade any individual or group. Profanity that is strong, sexualized, hate-based, or graphic is strictly prohibited, regardless of intent or context. Determinations regarding what constitutes “mild” versus “strong” profanity are made at the sole discretion of the AppleVis Editorial Team and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with this policy.
If you have any questions, please feel free to post a comment below or email us using our Contact Form.
Thanks,
The AppleVis Editorial Team
Comments
I think this is a good decision
I think this is a good decision. We have people have a lot of different ages that use this website so I like to keep it welcoming to everybody. I think this is a good decision. I think you guys are doing amazing. Keeping up with everything with this website. I’m really happy that we still have it.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself as the best way to go. S
But there are problems, such as, exactly what words fall within and outside your definitions, such as your definition of profanity? Or the ultimate conclusion concerning the speaker‘s intent. For example, the term “Doodoo head” could be a term of friendly endearment, or it could be a put down. On the other hand, “stupid Doodoo head“ move further towards an intent, which is not friendly or endearing.
And then there is context or circumstantial attenuation of circumstances or whatever you want to call it. For example, I might address Brian as a stupid Doodoo head, but my use of these words simply means that I like Brian. On the other hand, I could address X (whose name shall remain anonymous/unknown), and intend something entirely different. How is Apple is to judge such things?
More clarity
I'd really appreciate more clarity on this. I think saying: "at the discretion of the editorial team", is quite wooly and unhelpful I'm afraid.
As an example, the word"bloody", in my part of the world, the UK, is quite a standard word. It's not profanity and it's quite mild and well used. However, I had a post I wrote recommended to change the word.
Another example is using "hell", to some that is not a problem at all, to others, it is. I therefore think we need more clear guidelines as to what we are and are not allowed to say.
We can obviously all agree that certain words should not be said, but how about the words like "bloody" and "hell", which are more in that grey area.
This is just my ramblings. I think the editorial and mod teams do an amazing job and I'm sure all of us would echo that sentiment. In this case though, more solid guidelines would be appreciated.
Use your judgment and roll the dice
a case by Case evaluation is exactly that. every f…ing case will be evaluated individually. 😊
Can’t get more clear than that in my humble opinion. Just dip your tongue in your brain before speaking and all will be good.
Clairty?
Do people really need clarification on what is acceptable and what is not, when all that is required is a little tact.
@InfoRover
Hi InfoRover,
While it would be difficult to make an exhaustive list of words that are and are not allowed, under our new policy, both of the words you gave as examples would be permitted so long as they are not directed at another person or group. This is in contrast to our previous policy, where no profanity whatsoever was allowed. Stronger profanity, for example the F-bomb, is prohibited.