In Apple’s Human Rights Policy(1), the company asserts that “we believe in the power of technology to empower and connect people around the world—and that business can and should be a force for good.” As shareholders of the largest and most innovative tech company in the world, we believe Apple is uniquely positioned to both defend user privacy and also prevent victimization of at-risk populations.

And yet, the balance of privacy and safety at Apple has tilted in a concerning direction. In early 2024, Apple was named(2) to the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ list for the second year in a row, a record of the biggest companies engaged in facilitation and enabling sexual abuse and exploitation through their platforms. In a letter sent to Apple executives, NCOSE wrote that “an increasing number of stakeholders… are taking notice and growing frustrated about Apple’s negligence around child protection.” Such instances include Apple’s decision to reverse the implementation of NeuralHash, a program designed to scan for child sexual abuse material while maintaining user privacy. The reversal drew outrage from child safety groups/anti-trafficking watchdogs, indicating to some that Apple’s willingness to prevent distribution of illegal content came second to its desire to advance its commitments to users’ online privacy. Shareholders who care about both user privacy and child safety deserve further information on the way in which Apple arrived at this decision.

Outside of NeuralHash, Apple still fails(3) to block sexually explicit content from being viewed or sent by users under the age of twelve and does not default to censoring explicit content for teenage users on its messaging services. The App Store also recommends(4) content age-rated above an account user’s entered age, a practice that exposes underage users to sexually explicit content. Apple’s inaction has allowed children to be exposed to adult content and facilitated, wittingly or otherwise, illegal sexual exploitation of its youngest users. This inaction is impossible to reconcile with Apple’s stated commitments to “treating everyone with dignity and respect” and its business model as a “force for good.” If a company’s corporate philosophy on human rights allows the sexualization of innocent children to fall through the cracks, such loopholes belie either a lack of meaningful commitment to defending those rights, or an inability to effectively protect them. As Apple shareholders, we know the company is capable of doing better—and creating a world where “think different” means being the industry gold standard when it comes to protecting the most innocent among us.