Originally Posted by GQB
Despite having spent years defending laissez faire, I still have to say that I'm happy with apple trying to keep it's environs from degrading into the cesspool that the rest of the Internet has become.
"The rest of the internet"?? In other words, there are nothing but porn sites on the "rest of the internet"?
Odd, as I never see any, with my usual 20-40 tabs open, with scarce a genital or sexual reference to be found on my browser unless I go and look for them.
I guess that's all you look for, then.
Originally Posted by estyle
There are thousands of bookstores that choose not to sell porn (or erotic) magazines.
Why shouldn't apple have this choice?
For starters, how about because they've made themselves the only outlet for content for a multi-purpose device on which you can visit porn sites, take erotic pictures and videos, store and play porn videos transferred to the device, "talk dirty" on the phone and do SXTING with??
If I buy a DVD player at Best Buy, I can go to another store if my tastes run to erotica to buy DVD's and it's no reflection on BB or Samsung.
So why just censor apps, since every other function of the instrument allows all the sex you can digitize? I have a feeling it's an unintended side effect of closing out other potential app vendors which has created a subsequent perceived need to preserve Apple's image, but in the end, no matter, this is hypocrisy (and faux censorship) through app monopoly over all who want to embrace the Apple ecosystem.
That is, Apple can sell a porn-accessing/creating/transmitting/receiving device without blushing, while still claiming "purity" by not being a vendor of same - and they're not just keeping porn apps off, they're keeping all apps they don't like off.
Originally Posted by jrandersoniii
I guarantee, in less that 5-minutes I could come up with 100 songs and videos on iTunes that do more harm to women, homosexuals, and other people through their lyrics and portrayals of certain people.
Or much less.
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD
So when does Apple Inc relocate to Salt Lake City?
Actually, Salt Lake's a blue island in a red sea. All kinds of sin biz here!
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt
"...nauseating American sensitivities"
I agree 100%!
(Euro living in the USA)
P.S> But violent games and movies are normal for average American especially young one. The rule seems to be that learn how to kill and hurt people first and then learn erotism and natural ways or reproducing human kind. Heck... the last thing you will be allowed... at age 21... is to buy liquor. Just do not say F-word when you shoot that"enemy" on your console, because it is obnoxious.
I believe it was Lenny Bruce who said that American couples only feel really married when they're fighting, because growing up they always saw their parents doing that, but seldom expressing any physical intimacy.
And of course it's more healthy for kids to see avatars being torn and blown limb from bloody limb than a lovely human breast.
Originally Posted by adamthecarny
I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately there is a precedent already set for what music should and shouldnt be sold, which Apple has nothing to do with, whereas Apps are a blank slate. It is a shame they are not more open to allowing Adult App content but I would hesitate to call it a double standard.
I won't hesitate. The rationale for the App Store model is technical, not moral. The notion that "you can only buy apps from us" was because it ensured that the device worked properly by controlling multi-tasking, resource usage, API calls, optimizing battery life, preventing crashing, etc., and while limiting, I could see that. And people who want to go beyond those limits and have some geek cred can jailbreak - although (as I understand it) detected jailbreakers are banned from buying at the app store, which I find considerably more dodgy to justify - prohibiting people from paying Apple for real apps because they did something Apple didn't like which doesn't threaten Apple.
This is a whole new universe where Apple becomes not the technical
judge, but rather the moral
avatar to the entire userbase around the world. Apple users have always endured the taunts of cultists, but now Apple seems to have assumed a religious censor status the Pope can't muster!
And there are certainly safeguards Apple can easily include that provide as much protection from such apps as is considered sufficient for analog society and the rest of the digital world.
YouTube's no better. They leave highly inflammatory racist and rants against members of certain religions, as in really foul and totally discreditable stuff, up forever despite multiple complaints, and all language is fair game, but swing into bluenose action with dispatch at the mere suggestion of a nipple. And as far as I know, ditto for facebook.
However, on the same hardware you can easily go to sites where racier fare is allowed.
To make the point clearer, imagine (because of "multiple complaints") that Adobe built a breast and penis detector into Photoshop that would close and delete any image in which such human body appurtenances were found.
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
Frankly, I'm not interested in porn. I prefer my women clothed -- the mystery is more interesting to me than having the details handed over. Nor does crudeness for the sake of crudeness, or content intended to shock, amuse me in the least. I prefer sophisticated women and refined humor. Yet I find this move by Apple to be despicable.
We know that Apple has elected to control the immediate content of their product, and under our laws, either they can do that, or at least, no one has successfully figured out how to frame the question well enough to get it into court in such a way as to remove that ability.
All that said, I find the attempt to mother consumers -- both the "you can only buy apps here" and the "only apps we find to be 'safe' by our own definition" to be offensive and inappropriate. It is also arrogant.
As for the people who complained -- they're simply beneath my contempt.
Because the iPod has a web browser, absolutely no "protecting" of anyone is achieved by this move. It is literally striking an entirely fake pose. To actually achieve anything close to such a goal, the device would have to have the web browser capability, and Photo library capability, and video playback capability, all removed -- at the very least. Which of course leaves the web browser on the PC you must
have to support the iPod close to hand and ready to find materials sufficient to widen anyone's eyes within seconds.