A note on content restrictions
Saturday, October 3, 2026
Comments: 5 (plus live) (latest 1 day later)
Tagged: zarf, eblong, uk
One of my readers mentioned that eblong.com is now showing a "restricted website" warning for some UK users when browsing with iOS.
Thanks to Stuart Langridge for the screenshot.
If you try to modify the "Allowed List" preferences, you find an iOS notice: "To change these restrictions, the UK requires you to confirm you are an adult."
I want to be clear that I didn't do this. It's a restriction built into iOS. It apparently popped several months ago:
Apple is rolling out age checks for iPhone and iPad users in the UK that will ask them to verify if they are adults to access "certain services" such as 18-plus apps.
After customers accept the latest iOS 26.4 software update, they will be asked to verify their age, which they can do by providing a credit card or scanning their ID, according to an Apple support page.
Those who do not confirm how old they are or are underage will have web content filters turned on automatically.
-- BBC News, 25 March 2026
It is true that I added UK content restrictions to the IF Archive. That is an IFTF policy, set up on the advice of IFTF's lawyer. However, eblong.com is my personal web site, not an IFTF service, so it is not subject to that policy. Same goes for zarfhome.com, which is more player-facing but still run by me personally. Ditto the Obsessively Complete Infocom Catalog and the Visible Zorker (both hosted by me on eblong). And this blog (on zarfhome).
Obviously (a) I am unthrilled about this but (b) there's nothing I can do about it. Apple does not, to my knowledge, offer a "solemnly swear my website is not evil" button. But I only know what I'm reading in this article and Apple's support page.
It seems clear from the lack of public screaming that most UK users have been silently "verified as adult", probably due to having a credit card tied to their Apple account. (App Store, Apple Music, etc.) (But "Debit cards aren't eligible" according to the support page.)
There's alternate sources for some of my stuff. My games are on the IF Archive, but as I said, that has server-side content restrictions.
The Obsessively Complete Infocom Catalog is mirrored on the Internet Archive. (No connection to the IF Archive!) You can pull my Visible Zorker pages off of Github.
As for the rest, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine may provide a browsing path. ("The dead past is the living present," thank you Isaac.)
eblong is my record of everything I've done in the past thirty years. It's more than half my life. The point is to provide context and an anchor. Erasing that -- erasing that for children -- is an enormous disservice. You don't need me to tell you that. I just wanted to get it in writing, for those who can still see it.
I am not particularly interested in apportioning blame between Apple and the UK government here. I don't have an inside view and I'm biased. As are you. The result is the same, regardless. This crap is not done getting worse.
(This post is mirrored on Github in case you can't see the original.)
Comments from Andrew Plotkin
Comments from Mastodon
Sorry to hear this, Andrew. For what it’s worth, I can see your blog and website from the UK without having to verify that I’m an adult (I’m fairly certain I am one of those), nor do I have a credit card linked to my Apple account.
Maybe it’s because I’ve had an Apple account for so long now that I must be designated by them as an adult? Either way, the content restriction issues in the UK are less than helpful.
@brian It's possible. I think my Apple account is literally 18 years old. (Not that it matters, yet, as a US resident.)
@zarfeblong if I were you, I’d be tempted to argue that “eblong.com contains adult content” is incorrect personal data about you, and therefore submit a rectification request to Apple’s GDPR contact
@Gaelan Seems like a stretch. Is it personal? Is it incorrect? I've written a text game in which you punch a guy in the face. The UK law covers depictions of "real or realistic serious violence against a person." Does that count? Would a lawyer say it might count so it should be restricted just in case? Can I argue that the lawyer is wrong?
Comments from Mastodon (live)
Please wait...
This comment thread exists on Mastodon. (Why is this?) To reply, paste this URL into your Mastodon search bar:
Someone has pointed me at this Apple page, which includes a contact address for "concerns about your content being removed or restricted by Apple". I may try it. I can't imagine my message would be read by a human being, though.