And the people who want to make our entire world "child-safe" aren't self-absorbed and selfish?
As a matter of fact no, they aren't - but I'm not surprised you brought it up, because that is how ego-centric people define selfish: if YOU want it, then it is selfish. If I want it, then it is about 'my rights'. Aren't you a bit ashamed to be arguing that trying to make the world safer for children makes someone selfish and self-absorbed? It is a rather astonishing argument, even on its face.
There are many many many studies that show the detrimental effect obscenity has on children - any child-life specialist can fill you in. More so, glance around our world. Last week a group of 9 and 12 year old boys gang raped an 8 year old girl here in the US. Where do you think they picked up these ideas? Our society is suffering from our collective failures to properly restrain obscenity and only those who are ego-centically enmeshed in the obscene can fail to see that. But that is an aside - let's just talk about what Apple has done, which is require age ratings for applications. Age-ratings do not in any way materially keep you from having what you want, so you cannot argue that you are 'harmed' by them.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
And the people who want to make our entire world "child-safe" aren't self-absorbed and selfish?
Umm... no. By virtue of the fact that they are concerned about others maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory
That is pretty funny that you feel Olbermann is the "left's" version of Rush. Therein lies the problem with so-called "balanced" news coverage in this country. Olbermann is a news anchor, Rush is a pundit.
Keith Olbermann a news anchor? Please! How about a lousy sportscaster (fired from ESPN & Fox Sports), weak Bill O'reilly impersonator, ratings basement dweller (top rated competing show has 3.25 times the viewers), and unhinged liberal pundit / commentator. Even by NBC standards the guy is a tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
As a matter of fact no, they aren't - but I'm not surprised you brought it up, because that is how ego-centric people define selfish: if YOU want it, then it is selfish. If I want it, then it is about 'my rights'. Aren't you a bit ashamed to be arguing that trying to make the world safer for children makes someone selfish and self-absorbed? It is a rather astonishing argument, even on its face.
There are many many many studies that show the detrimental effect obscenity has on children - any child-life specialist can fill you in. More so, glance around our world. Last week a group of 9 and 12 year old boys gang raped an 8 year old girl here in the US. Where do you think they picked up these ideas? Our society is suffering from our collective failures to properly restrain obscenity and only those who are ego-centically enmeshed in the obscene can fail to see that. But that is an aside - let's just talk about what Apple has done, which is require age ratings for applications. Age-ratings do not in any way materially keep you from having what you want, so you cannot argue that you are 'harmed' by them.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not so naive as to believe censoring words in a dictionary will protect the innocence of children.
We have to do what we can. Set a standard and send a message. Stand for something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree
Unless you completely isolate kids (live in a rural town, home school, keep them away from other kids), they're going to be exposed to cursing, porn, and even *gasp* drugs. And yet they'll somehow turn out fine. There's nothing wrong with "Jesus police". Here in the US, there are many people including those in power (think the Bush administration) who want to remove the separation of church and state.
Not all kids will turn out fine. Newsflash... to the extent that some kids are parented at all they might as well have been raised by wolves. It's all about the lowest common denominator.
Yes, there is everything wrong with "Jesus police". The way you use it is clearly filled with condescension, contempt and ridicule. Your beliefs are 100% your business but there is no reason to attempt to childishly offend others. And by the way... It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
I don't think Apple wants to keep 10 million crappy fart apps. Apple wants quality applications. Most of the stuff in App store is useless.
They seem to always reject those that are quite good. Whoever it is who is supposed to approve/reject apps, some pr0n apps are making their way in.. the person who approved it must be feeling ...
They seem to always reject those that are quite good. Whoever it is who is supposed to approve/reject apps, some pr0n apps are making their way in.. the person who approved it must be feeling ...
Here is an enlightening read for you, Mr. StateStudent. You might learn a few things about the way you'd like to use technology - tweet all your friends about it.
Here is an enlightening read for you, Mr. StateStudent. You might learn a few things about the way you'd like to use technology - tweet all your friends about it.
Exactly. Last I checked, Apple was not the government. I think it's odd to confuse the two. One has the power to censor, the other does not.
I know only the government can censor. I was not calling Apple a censor, just drawing a contrast between them 25 years ago when they saw themselves as throwing a hammer against the 1984 regime, to today, refusing to publish certain words themselves. Words!
It is not their fault, it is just the state they live in. California has this excellent culture of trying to be the best person you can be. No smoking, trans fat bans etc - all these laws about being a better person. Apple is just reflecting that culture by "helping" us to be better people, to not swear. The creepy undertone of course is control - 1984. And anyway you can't take credit for being a good person unless you had a choice not to be. Which is why California's laws mean none of them are good.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
No, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogorant
Yes, there is everything wrong with "Jesus police". The way you use it is clearly filled with condescension, contempt and ridicule. Your beliefs are 100% your business but there is no reason to attempt to childishly offend others. And by the way... It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Please, ease up on the holier-than-thou attitude regarding "Jesus Police" and your religious beliefs. There is nothing offensive about that stupid phrase, unless you happen to be a nun.
no, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Please, ease up on the holier-than-thou attitude regarding "jesus police" and your religious beliefs. There is nothing offensive about that stupid phrase, unless you happen to be a nun.
Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).
Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.
"Censorship is an official act..."
The trouble with your soapbox perspective is that you have a notion that words do not evolve in their meaning.
As far as I know, if quite a number of people decide to use a word the way they want to, its broader or new definition becomes acceptable. It is not censored by the "Dictionary police"
One lesson that we have to learn here is how fast bloggers jumped to conclusion, and many of us believed everything we read.
If we read the original blog by John Gruber, it was a very serious condemnation of Apple's policies. I myself was very concerned. Many just took his words to be the truth.
How many asked: "Is this what Apple has done?"
Many accepted it as truth, because the notion was consistent with their own belief that Apple is bad, etc., etc
The story is far different from what was posted here:
And the most damning of all, there was no direct admission by Mr. Gruber that he might have spoken too soon.
Contrary to what some be posted here, the issue raised by censorship of materials like the dictionary has far more reaching impact on everyone and the course of Apple Apps that the Google Apps that were rejected and removed.
One lesson that we have to learn here is how fast bloggers jumped to conclusion, and many of us believed everything we read.
If we read the original blog by John Gruber, it was a very serious condemnation of Apple's policies. I myself was very concerned. Many just took his words to be the truth.
How many asked: "Is this what Apple has done?"
Many accepted it as truth, because the notion was consistent with their own belief that Apple is bad, etc., etc
The story is far different from what was posted here:
And the most damning of all, there was no direct admission by Mr. Gruber that he might have spoken too soon.
Contrary to what some be posted here, the issue raised by censorship of materials like the dictionary has far more reaching impact on everyone and the course of Apple Apps that the Google Apps that were rejected and removed.
CGC
There seems to be a disconnect between what the developer says and what PS says as being the reason for 'censoring'.
PS is claiming that 'regular' swear words were fine, and NOT the reason why the app was rejected, but it was the new-fangled 'urban slang' that was the problem.
The developer claims that the app reviewer sent him specific examples of searches for 'regular' swear words like shit or fuck, and that those were the reason why the app was rejected.
Given that the developer gave specific examples of words the reviewer claimed were objectionable, and that this story has gotten big enough for PS to respond to it, in my personal opinion, I happen to think that PS is shading the truth to spin the story away from Apple having a stupid censorship policy.
And PS's suggestion that this is all the developers fault is also ridiculous (as the developer was the one who 'chose' to censor these words to get his app into the store sooner instead of choosing to wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new 17+ rating for iPhone apps). It's especially ridiculous when there were also dictionary apps with much lower ratings in the app store, with at least some of the specific words that the app reviewer deemed to be objectionable.
No, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Parents want tools that will help them be better parents; tools like age-ratings. By demanding such tools, parents are not being selfish or trying to enforce their standards upon you, but they are asking for ways to help them maintain those standards.
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language. Speech and language are not equivalent, and placing limits on the language used is not the same thing as restricting speech. Lets also talk about prOn, since everyone keeps bringing it up. Telling you that 'you may not view or distribute prOn in a public place' is not the same as saying 'you can't view prOn'.
It is really laughable the way you guys come at this, because what you are really saying is that by restricting you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want, you are being censored. But I doubt very seriously you would really argue such a point to its logical conclusion, because you yourselves realize that there should be limits. You would not, for example, walk into a kindergarten and distribute prOn to all of the toddlers. Why? Because you know that it is completely inappropriate to do so. Strangely enough, though, you have no problem arguing that Apple ought to allow someone to do exactly the same thing through an iPhone without any kinds of control at all.
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language.
Yes it is.
The language used conveys meaning as much or more than the "topic" that someone's talking about.
If I say "Today the city is enveloped in a dreary haze."
And then you, as my editor, change that to: "Today the city is enveloped in a haze."
None of the facts have changed (the city is hazy). However, the meaning is completely different. I live in China, and this is exactly the kind of censorship the state-owned news media here engage in. They don't always patently censor certain topics, but they are choosing a spin that makes things often sound "glass half-full" rather than "glass half-empty" (or vice versa).
Likewise, in the USA, the government until recently allowed news media to report that there were casualties in Iraq, but they didn't allow them to photograph caskets. The government was censoring the visual that really brings home to Americans the fact that people are dying. So, they weren't censoring the topic (media were free to say people died), but they were censoring the visual...removing one powerful way to tell that story.
Abridging or adjusting someone's content in any way at all (or creating the conditions whereby people have little recourse other than to self-abridge or adjust their content) is censorship, quite clearly.
Yet, even with parental controls, this app STILL requires a +17 rating but Safari does not.
This app does not have those words in it. It requires internet access to get the words as does Safari.
The rating is to advise parents. Likewise parents can choose to enable or block safari completely through parental controls. Safari is not on the application store.
a few points:
1. Its Apples platform.
2. Apple are a high profile company and are open to multiple lawsuits for any reason whatsoever. 3. By controlling their platform the can minimise the margin for complaints and lawsuits from users.
4. In the USA the court system is flawed and as such anyone can raise a lawsuit and are not liable for the other parties costs. This provides no disincentive to litigation. In the UK if you took on Apple and lost you would probably lose your house and the shirt off your back just paying Apples legal costs.
I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.
Am I missing something here?
That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
How would you enforce it?
What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.
Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
So far, the only thing the FCC and this controversy may help to clear up is the process for developers to understand what is and is not acceptable. Blurry lines are simply stupid in this kind of business.
I point to the Google Voice debacle where Apple can't even tell the developers of the third-party apps what to change to make their app's acceptable for the APP Store after many months of being sold. Where Phil himself approves the APP. Very nice Apple.
Comments
Works fine for me. You still rocking the EDGE network?
Not on Edge. Either 3G or wi-fi but thats not the point. I believe AI have lousy slow javascript to execute the pages or whatever.
AI need to have mobile site, like this: http://mobile.macrumors.com/
Feel me?
And the people who want to make our entire world "child-safe" aren't self-absorbed and selfish?
As a matter of fact no, they aren't - but I'm not surprised you brought it up, because that is how ego-centric people define selfish: if YOU want it, then it is selfish. If I want it, then it is about 'my rights'. Aren't you a bit ashamed to be arguing that trying to make the world safer for children makes someone selfish and self-absorbed? It is a rather astonishing argument, even on its face.
There are many many many studies that show the detrimental effect obscenity has on children - any child-life specialist can fill you in. More so, glance around our world. Last week a group of 9 and 12 year old boys gang raped an 8 year old girl here in the US. Where do you think they picked up these ideas? Our society is suffering from our collective failures to properly restrain obscenity and only those who are ego-centically enmeshed in the obscene can fail to see that. But that is an aside - let's just talk about what Apple has done, which is require age ratings for applications. Age-ratings do not in any way materially keep you from having what you want, so you cannot argue that you are 'harmed' by them.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
Not on Edge. Either 3G or wi-fi but thats not the point. I believe AI have lousy slow javascript to execute the pages or whatever.
AI need to have mobile site, like this: http://mobile.macrumors.com/
Feel me?
+1! I'm currently developing a mobile Appleinsider.
And the people who want to make our entire world "child-safe" aren't self-absorbed and selfish?
Umm... no. By virtue of the fact that they are concerned about others maybe?
That is pretty funny that you feel Olbermann is the "left's" version of Rush. Therein lies the problem with so-called "balanced" news coverage in this country. Olbermann is a news anchor, Rush is a pundit.
Keith Olbermann a news anchor? Please! How about a lousy sportscaster (fired from ESPN & Fox Sports), weak Bill O'reilly impersonator, ratings basement dweller (top rated competing show has 3.25 times the viewers), and unhinged liberal pundit / commentator. Even by NBC standards the guy is a tool.
As a matter of fact no, they aren't - but I'm not surprised you brought it up, because that is how ego-centric people define selfish: if YOU want it, then it is selfish. If I want it, then it is about 'my rights'. Aren't you a bit ashamed to be arguing that trying to make the world safer for children makes someone selfish and self-absorbed? It is a rather astonishing argument, even on its face.
There are many many many studies that show the detrimental effect obscenity has on children - any child-life specialist can fill you in. More so, glance around our world. Last week a group of 9 and 12 year old boys gang raped an 8 year old girl here in the US. Where do you think they picked up these ideas? Our society is suffering from our collective failures to properly restrain obscenity and only those who are ego-centically enmeshed in the obscene can fail to see that. But that is an aside - let's just talk about what Apple has done, which is require age ratings for applications. Age-ratings do not in any way materially keep you from having what you want, so you cannot argue that you are 'harmed' by them.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
Amen.
Tell me you're kidding and that you're really not so naive as to believe censoring words in a dictionary will protect the innocence of children.
We have to do what we can. Set a standard and send a message. Stand for something.
Unless you completely isolate kids (live in a rural town, home school, keep them away from other kids), they're going to be exposed to cursing, porn, and even *gasp* drugs. And yet they'll somehow turn out fine. There's nothing wrong with "Jesus police". Here in the US, there are many people including those in power (think the Bush administration) who want to remove the separation of church and state.
Not all kids will turn out fine. Newsflash... to the extent that some kids are parented at all they might as well have been raised by wolves. It's all about the lowest common denominator.
Yes, there is everything wrong with "Jesus police". The way you use it is clearly filled with condescension, contempt and ridicule. Your beliefs are 100% your business but there is no reason to attempt to childishly offend others. And by the way... It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Peace
I don't think Apple wants to keep 10 million crappy fart apps. Apple wants quality applications. Most of the stuff in App store is useless.
They seem to always reject those that are quite good. Whoever it is who is supposed to approve/reject apps, some pr0n apps are making their way in.. the person who approved it must be feeling ...
They seem to always reject those that are quite good. Whoever it is who is supposed to approve/reject apps, some pr0n apps are making their way in.. the person who approved it must be feeling ...
Here is an enlightening read for you, Mr. StateStudent. You might learn a few things about the way you'd like to use technology - tweet all your friends about it.
Amazon: The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future
Here is an enlightening read for you, Mr. StateStudent. You might learn a few things about the way you'd like to use technology - tweet all your friends about it.
Amazon: The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future
And, your point is?
Exactly. Last I checked, Apple was not the government. I think it's odd to confuse the two. One has the power to censor, the other does not.
I know only the government can censor. I was not calling Apple a censor, just drawing a contrast between them 25 years ago when they saw themselves as throwing a hammer against the 1984 regime, to today, refusing to publish certain words themselves. Words!
It is not their fault, it is just the state they live in. California has this excellent culture of trying to be the best person you can be. No smoking, trans fat bans etc - all these laws about being a better person. Apple is just reflecting that culture by "helping" us to be better people, to not swear. The creepy undertone of course is control - 1984. And anyway you can't take credit for being a good person unless you had a choice not to be. Which is why California's laws mean none of them are good.
It is not 'selfish' of parents to want to be able to protect their children, or indeed, to want the world to be safe for their children. I am actually really surprised that you would attempt such an argument.
No, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Yes, there is everything wrong with "Jesus police". The way you use it is clearly filled with condescension, contempt and ridicule. Your beliefs are 100% your business but there is no reason to attempt to childishly offend others. And by the way... It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Please, ease up on the holier-than-thou attitude regarding "Jesus Police" and your religious beliefs. There is nothing offensive about that stupid phrase, unless you happen to be a nun.
no, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Please, ease up on the holier-than-thou attitude regarding "jesus police" and your religious beliefs. There is nothing offensive about that stupid phrase, unless you happen to be a nun.
+1! Hahs!
Censorship is an official act, by definition. A censor is an official empowered to suppress. Apple is not official and consequently it does not posses the power to censor. The use of the word in this context is hyperbolic (i.e., an exaggeration).
Not that anyone much cares about what words mean anymore. But then, that was the irony I was pointing out here.
"Censorship is an official act..."
The trouble with your soapbox perspective is that you have a notion that words do not evolve in their meaning.
As far as I know, if quite a number of people decide to use a word the way they want to, its broader or new definition becomes acceptable. It is not censored by the "Dictionary police"
look up
wicked
bad
cool
hot
gay
to cite a few.
CGC
If we read the original blog by John Gruber, it was a very serious condemnation of Apple's policies. I myself was very concerned. Many just took his words to be the truth.
How many asked: "Is this what Apple has done?"
Many accepted it as truth, because the notion was consistent with their own belief that Apple is bad, etc., etc
The story is far different from what was posted here:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ph...ller_app_store
And the most damning of all, there was no direct admission by Mr. Gruber that he might have spoken too soon.
Contrary to what some be posted here, the issue raised by censorship of materials like the dictionary has far more reaching impact on everyone and the course of Apple Apps that the Google Apps that were rejected and removed.
CGC
One lesson that we have to learn here is how fast bloggers jumped to conclusion, and many of us believed everything we read.
If we read the original blog by John Gruber, it was a very serious condemnation of Apple's policies. I myself was very concerned. Many just took his words to be the truth.
How many asked: "Is this what Apple has done?"
Many accepted it as truth, because the notion was consistent with their own belief that Apple is bad, etc., etc
The story is far different from what was posted here:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ph...ller_app_store
And the most damning of all, there was no direct admission by Mr. Gruber that he might have spoken too soon.
Contrary to what some be posted here, the issue raised by censorship of materials like the dictionary has far more reaching impact on everyone and the course of Apple Apps that the Google Apps that were rejected and removed.
CGC
There seems to be a disconnect between what the developer says and what PS says as being the reason for 'censoring'.
PS is claiming that 'regular' swear words were fine, and NOT the reason why the app was rejected, but it was the new-fangled 'urban slang' that was the problem.
The developer claims that the app reviewer sent him specific examples of searches for 'regular' swear words like shit or fuck, and that those were the reason why the app was rejected.
Given that the developer gave specific examples of words the reviewer claimed were objectionable, and that this story has gotten big enough for PS to respond to it, in my personal opinion, I happen to think that PS is shading the truth to spin the story away from Apple having a stupid censorship policy.
And PS's suggestion that this is all the developers fault is also ridiculous (as the developer was the one who 'chose' to censor these words to get his app into the store sooner instead of choosing to wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new 17+ rating for iPhone apps). It's especially ridiculous when there were also dictionary apps with much lower ratings in the app store, with at least some of the specific words that the app reviewer deemed to be objectionable.
No, but when some parents expect society to be their collective baby-sitter, and expecting everything to be sanitized to their standards, then it is selfish, not to mention bad parenting.
Parents want tools that will help them be better parents; tools like age-ratings. By demanding such tools, parents are not being selfish or trying to enforce their standards upon you, but they are asking for ways to help them maintain those standards.
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language. Speech and language are not equivalent, and placing limits on the language used is not the same thing as restricting speech. Lets also talk about prOn, since everyone keeps bringing it up. Telling you that 'you may not view or distribute prOn in a public place' is not the same as saying 'you can't view prOn'.
It is really laughable the way you guys come at this, because what you are really saying is that by restricting you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want, you are being censored. But I doubt very seriously you would really argue such a point to its logical conclusion, because you yourselves realize that there should be limits. You would not, for example, walk into a kindergarten and distribute prOn to all of the toddlers. Why? Because you know that it is completely inappropriate to do so. Strangely enough, though, you have no problem arguing that Apple ought to allow someone to do exactly the same thing through an iPhone without any kinds of control at all.
My belief is that people frequently use the term 'censorship' to refer to limits on their behavior or expression that contradict their desires and wants, divorced from any consideration for others. Based on that use of the word, however, any kind of limit is censorship. This, however, is not what censorship is. Lets talk about language, for example: censorship is telling you that you cannot speak about a certain topic. Censorship is not telling you that you can't speak about that topic using certain language.
Yes it is.
The language used conveys meaning as much or more than the "topic" that someone's talking about.
If I say "Today the city is enveloped in a dreary haze."
And then you, as my editor, change that to: "Today the city is enveloped in a haze."
None of the facts have changed (the city is hazy). However, the meaning is completely different. I live in China, and this is exactly the kind of censorship the state-owned news media here engage in. They don't always patently censor certain topics, but they are choosing a spin that makes things often sound "glass half-full" rather than "glass half-empty" (or vice versa).
Likewise, in the USA, the government until recently allowed news media to report that there were casualties in Iraq, but they didn't allow them to photograph caskets. The government was censoring the visual that really brings home to Americans the fact that people are dying. So, they weren't censoring the topic (media were free to say people died), but they were censoring the visual...removing one powerful way to tell that story.
Abridging or adjusting someone's content in any way at all (or creating the conditions whereby people have little recourse other than to self-abridge or adjust their content) is censorship, quite clearly.
Yet, even with parental controls, this app STILL requires a +17 rating but Safari does not.
This app does not have those words in it. It requires internet access to get the words as does Safari.
The rating is to advise parents. Likewise parents can choose to enable or block safari completely through parental controls. Safari is not on the application store.
a few points:
1. Its Apples platform.
2. Apple are a high profile company and are open to multiple lawsuits for any reason whatsoever. 3. By controlling their platform the can minimise the margin for complaints and lawsuits from users.
4. In the USA the court system is flawed and as such anyone can raise a lawsuit and are not liable for the other parties costs. This provides no disincentive to litigation. In the UK if you took on Apple and lost you would probably lose your house and the shirt off your back just paying Apples legal costs.
I can see both sides of the argument, free speech vs. the slippery slope to complete censorship. The answer, as far as the internet is concerned, is have all Porn sites use a .porn suffix in their URL address like .com, .org, .edu, etc., and then businesses, libraries, parents, etc., can just set their Servers/IP's/computers/iPhones/browsers/firewalls/email clients not to accept anything from a .porn URL and people who want porn can set it to accept URL's with a .porn suffix.
Am I missing something here?
That does sound all neat and tidy, but you're missing two main things:
- How would you enforce it?
- What is "porn"?
The point I'm trying to make here is that Apple is being idiotic by putting themselves in the position of making that judgment. They can't determine what is offensive, any more than you or I could, because "offensive" is basically a word without meaning.Americans, for example, tend to think girls in bikinis or lingerie plastered all over magazines and TV is OK; to fundamentalist Muslims that would be outrageous. (This is but one example of the problem Apple is trying to solve.)
Not trying to self-promote, but I wrote a blog post back in May explaining how I think Apple ought to address these issues. Linking because it's too long to paste here.
If you don't want to click, the point of it is: Apple is putting itself in a position to accept legal liability by being the arbiter of what constitutes 'acceptability'. Apple should have built a system that let the users determine acceptability. That way, the responsibility for the rating system is foisted onto the community instead.
I point to the Google Voice debacle where Apple can't even tell the developers of the third-party apps what to change to make their app's acceptable for the APP Store after many months of being sold. Where Phil himself approves the APP. Very nice Apple.