I don't think anyone is crying over Apple not wanting to handle authentication for web sites offering "Illegal drugs or non-legally prescribed controlled substances."

The rest of the list is similar.

And yes, with that list Apple has once again affirmed it's not interested in helping normalize pornography. That's its choice.

> Apple reserves the right to disable Sign in with Apple on a website or app for any reason at any time.

“Show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.”

Who decides what’s false or derogatory?

None of these are legal definitions, Apple gets to decide what they mean. And no court of law is going to rule that they don't have the right to block when their TOS end with:

> Apple reserves the right to disable Sign in with Apple on a website or app for any reason at any time.

(IAAL, this is not legal advice.)

That's not how contract law works. There's a whole body of law around how to construe language in contracts, and it's subject to litigation and dispute if the definition isn't made clear in the contract itself.

> no court of law is going to rule that they don't have the right to block

Then you don't know courts very well. Such clauses are still subject to the law and public policy. For example, no competent court is going to allow anyone to use an escape clause to terminate a contract with someone because of their race, age, or gender.

But yeah, if you use someone's services and then publicly talk trash about them? Why should they be forced to continue to do business with you?

Do you really not see how saying, "businesses should be allowed to sever ties with people who say mean things" is different from saying, "the courts will decide whether or not you committed libel"?

> For example, no competent court is going to allow anyone to use an escape clause to terminate a contract with someone because of their race, age, or gender.

Do you think there's a difference between a court saying, "we're not going to allow you to sever a business relationship because of a protected characteristic", and "we're going to regulate what does and doesn't count as disparagement"?

Can you point me at an example of a business fighting a disparagement clause in a contract with language like this and winning, based on a court deciding that what they said didn't count as disparagement?

This is like the people who say they're going to sue Facebook for taking down posts because their definition of "misleading information" isn't specific enough. You can sue anyone for anything, but you're not going to win that case. Companies with contract language like this have broad leverage to wield their power in whatever way they see fit -- because for the most part courts have not ruled that escape clauses boiling down to "we can decide to ban you at any time for any reason" are illegal or unenforceable.

Of course I see that. Contract law and defamation law (tort) are separate domains. A court does not have to conclude that a party to a contract committed libel in order to determine that they are in breach for making disparaging remarks about the counterparty. The layperson might (understandably) believe that the analysis would be identical, but it is not. A finding of libel under tort law requires a multi-part test which I won't elaborate on here, and there are lots of defenses, too.

> Companies with contract language like this have broad leverage to wield their power in whatever way they see fit -- because for the most part courts have not ruled that escape clauses boiling down to "we can decide to ban you at any time for any reason" are illegal or unenforceable.

I think we're in violent agreement for the most part -- I'm just saying that your characterization is overbroad since obviously "any reason" is not quite "any reason." As engineers, we should strive to be as accurate as possible in our analyses and avoid hasty overgeneralizations.

At bottom, courts aren't generally inclined to force parties to do business with each other if one of them is no longer interested, there are no promises left to be fulfilled, and there's nothing binding them to an infinite term (which courts also don't like to enforce). Apple is not a common carrier or the government, and so they're treated just like anyone else for the purpose of contract law.

Nobody said they have to, just that it's very dangerous to depend on such a service. I say bad things about companies all the time!

Wait till you read the fine print in your cell phone contract.

Contracts of adhesion are just a part of life. We agree to them practically every day whenever we do business with a third party. And if you were in the other party's shoes, you'd do the same thing; otherwise you couldn't practically run a business.