I'm not saying child pornography doesn't happen. I'm saying it is too much to say that any sexual content will lead to child pornography. Even the current (already very limited) "sexual" content of the App Store has nothing to do with that.
I never said it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugodinho
Apple can do what it wants, but it if wants to be a mainstream content provider, they shouldn't limit themselves this way. There's nothing wrong with erotism and sexuality, and to say the opposite is what I call american sensitivity.
Again, I never said it did. The Apple iTunes store is currently in 96 countries. What evidence that this is only 'American' sensitivity that caused this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugodinho
It seems Apple is being forced to stay out of that big market because of that moralism. If they just decided to allow it and make a mature section of the iStore we would even get much better content than the iBoobs we have today.
Who is saying they are being forced.
The fact is that a significant number of users are complaining, and that nobody that I have ever heard of except the store owner, wants to see an XXX-Rated video store in their neighborhood.
One of Apple's primary audiences for the iPod and iPhones is kids. Most of their iPods are paid for by their parents. Even their iTunes Store accounts are as well.
To suggest that putting an Adult Section in the iTunes store would satisfy everybody is ludicrous.
Apple is a corporation that has rightfully decided on how, what, where and when it can sell its products. If Apple is wrong, their sales will suffer and their shareholders will demand change. I can't for the life of me imagine that either will every happen; or getting an XXX-rated section into your local high school library.
You know, Apple wants to keep a squeaky clean appearance for the public. They don't want some stupid running this app on the subway for all to see. It is not good for Apple. Their public relations guys hopefully had a say in this. I support Apple on this. All you complaining freedom-loving guys out there, grow up!
You know, Apple wants to keep a squeaky clean appearance for the public. They don't want some stupid running this app on the subway for all to see. It is not good for Apple. Their public relations guys hopefully had a say in this. I support Apple on this. All you complaining freedom-loving guys out there, grow up!
Why don't they just add two black mouse ears to the iPad for handles- problem solved.
Do you really think that there is an absolute disconnect between adult entertainment and child porn?
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't/shouldn't need or make it easier to get involved.
No I don't think there is an absolute disconnect between adult entertainment and child porn, and neither did I imply this disconnect. In fact I mentioned sexual predation, not child sexual predation, and certainly not child porn.
I will reiterate: to link the consumption of adult entertainment to sexual predation would be just plain stupid.
Specifically, there is no evidence linking the viewing of adult entertainment (pornography or erotica) with sexual predation of any kind, let alone child sexual predation. This is not the argument that you have argued against.
That there is (spurious) evidence linking the viewing of child pornography to child abuse says nothing of the link between consuming legal adult entertainment and sexual predation of any kind. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in looking at child pornography already has a sexual desire for children, which is something that society does not yet have adequate measures to address or control.
That "child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry" or that "approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography" says nothing about the link between consuming legal adult entertainment and any involvement with child pornography, let alone involvement with child sexual abuse.
I would strongly refute the implication that making adult entertainment available in any way legitimately aids or abets child sexual predation.
You know, Apple wants to keep a squeaky clean appearance for the public. They don't want some stupid running this app on the subway for all to see. It is not good for Apple. Their public relations guys hopefully had a say in this. I support Apple on this. All you complaining freedom-loving guys out there, grow up!
I still think it's funny that you can find the SI Swimsuit application, which has content at least as bad or worse than any of the banned apps. I support Apple keeping any image they want, and enforcing any rules they want. It would just be nice if the rules were the same for SI and small developers--and actually spelled out.
Why your constant insistence on conflating adult entertainment with child porn? Surely you are watering down the absolute horrendousness of child porn by lumping it in with adult entertainment under the general heading "porn"?
Are the fundamentalist nutbags that I assume complained to Apple also the teabagging idiots screaming "I want my country back! Big Government get out of my medicine cabinet! Obama is a Nazi Socialist!" Seems like they only mind censorship when it doesn't agree with them. FAIL.
Honestly, you have no class and I pity you for your comment. Freedom is wonderful when it is not abused, and to protect it from abuse so that others may enjoy it, you establish laws that are based on moral principles and virtues. Many which you ignorantly enjoy today! If Apple has a philosophy about how it runs the company, they are in the complete right to do so. In my opinion, it is honorable what they are doing.
Stop being a blind and ignorant base head, I feel so sorry for your children with that attitude.
Censorship is a problem when it is managed by the government, not private corporations.
That is when your rights are being infringed.
I disagree. That my rights are not being infringed does not say anything of the ethics or morals of the situation. I believe censorship is immoral in most instances, and thus I am opposed to it regardless of whether it affects my rights.
People telling Apple what they should be selling is far stupider than Apple deciding what to sell.
Most are not telling Apple what they should be selling, they are arguing against Apple's decision to censor. Suggesting that a company act in a more responsible manner is not the same as mandating what they can and cannot sell.
I would strongly refute the implication that making adult entertainment available in any way legitimately aids or abets child sexual predation.
Then I would suggest that you tell that to the authors who stated,
Quote:
…predators often send adult porn to children to desensitize them from sexual content and child porn to show the child that other children are sexual; sending them a message that it is okay. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&client=safari
Why your constant insistence on conflating adult entertainment with child porn? Surely you are watering down the absolute horrendousness of child porn by lumping it in with adult entertainment under the general heading "porn"?
If you go back, you will see that my original issue was in reference to a comment that Apple should create a ""Backroom" Adult Category?" like that would prevent children from accessing 'overtly sexual' content.
Government policy in most parts of the world is about letting adults decide for themselves what's reasonable, with protection for minors. It's a system that works very, very well in accomodating liberty and choice. Apple could do a lot worse than understand this and ensure that their rules match the real rules which were passed by our representatives in Congress, as reflected by us all as constituents.
The real hilarity in the article is the official letter from Apple, in which they suggest in all lawyerly professionial seriousness that, perhaps... the developer wishes to re-write "Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored)" so that it's not about... jiggling breasts?
Government policy in most parts of the world is about letting adults decide for themselves what's reasonable, with protection for minors. It's a system that works very, very well in accomodating liberty and choice. Apple could do a lot worse than understand this and ensure that their rules match the real rules which were passed by our representatives in Congress, as reflected by us all as constituents.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule Apple's decision? And where does the American Constitution support such findings now?
As one highly learned in this field (World Political Sciences), I would be pleased to read for that matter, anything at all that to support your contentions.
Remember, the Apple iTunes App Store isn't just about the U.S.
The real hilarity in the article is the official letter from Apple, in which they suggest in all lawyerly professionial seriousness that, perhaps... the developer wishes to re-write "Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored)" so that it's not about... jiggling breasts?
That made me chuckle too. I bet the kid at Apple who sent out the letter was smirking at that, as well.
The real hilarity in the article is the official letter from Apple, in which they suggest in all lawyerly professionial seriousness that, perhaps... the developer wishes to re-write "Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored)" so that it's not about... jiggling breasts?
Keep the name. And make it into an adventure game, something about dealing with the policies of some fruit company....
Absolutely, and which gets to my point: It's a matter of making responsible choices.
It will be interesting to see how Apple navigates this.
Apple, being a private company, has every right to do this. We, as consumers and citizens of a free country, have every right to buy/not buy/boycott/celebrate the iPhone, but we also every right to criticize Apple's decision on any rational basis, regardless of our consumer decision of buying or using the device. Apple is censoring content - and they have every right to do that, just as anyone has the right to criticize their decision and call it censorship. But just because you own/use an iPhone doesn't mean you've forfeited your right to criticize its manufacturer - you just can't sue them. I'm sure they were already banning hard-core/snuff/child porn from the iPhone and nobody raised a stink - although anyone would have been accurate to call that censorship as well; that's just censorship with a different standard that more people agree with.
It's not censorship in the same way that authoritarian governments censor, but it is private, self-censorship, which the private-enterprise system supports and, it's likely, the overwhelming consensus is that we do support certain standard of censorship - especially against illegal content. E.g., there are no apps (or legit web sites) for finding the nearest cocaine dealer. But did Apple draw the line at the right place, or did they go too far? Jiggling boobs "offend" some people and may be inappropriate for children under a certain age whose parents believe jiggling boobs might upset their children (I guess). OK, well, how about gay dating services? Patently offensive to a huge number of people in this country and around the world who would also argue that exposure to such a forum would damage their children in some way - and Apple would have every "right" to remove this content on the same basis that they made this decision. And the public would have every right to celebrate this or call it censorship and discrimination against a minority (a minority protected in certain ways in certain parts of the country but also sanctioned against by the federal government and many local governments). Don't care because you hate gays? God bless you; how about mixed-race dating? Or cross-religion dating? Or Jews-only dating? Or atheist-content apps, or fundamentalist-Christian or Muslim or Hindu apps? Plenty of people find much of what fundamentalists say as patently offensive - how about censoring them? Video games involving shooting machine guns at Arabs might be considered offensive and damaging to children - how about removing that content?
I wouldn't want there to be easy access to hard-core or snuff or child porn apps, but there are laws against two of those and easy ways to block child access to the rest. Jiggling boobs are perfectly legal and, objectively, harmless to adults if viewed in private (and content delivered to a privately-owned device is private). If your adult sensibilities are offended, avert your eyes - a enforced puritan experience in a public forum is an oxymoron. And although the app store isn't technically a public forum, it's certainly presenting itself that way most of the time. If parents are concerned about inappropriate, but legal, content being delivered to their child on an iPhone, responsible parenting means tightly monitoring and censoring the content themselves, or they can replace the iPhone with a device not capable of delivering the entire internet. Apple censoring jiggling boobs is just taking the role of parent off of parent's shoulders. They have every right to do coddle that market, despite that it looks asinine (to some), but anyone would be correct in calling them out for excessive censorship on behalf of lazy parents and puritans.
Comments
So, until they can fix the searching engine to filter out all that nasty stuff, they will most likely just cut it out altogether.
That seem to be Apple's SOP: They can't figure it out, so they just eliminate it.
I'm not saying child pornography doesn't happen. I'm saying it is too much to say that any sexual content will lead to child pornography. Even the current (already very limited) "sexual" content of the App Store has nothing to do with that.
I never said it did.
Apple can do what it wants, but it if wants to be a mainstream content provider, they shouldn't limit themselves this way. There's nothing wrong with erotism and sexuality, and to say the opposite is what I call american sensitivity.
Again, I never said it did. The Apple iTunes store is currently in 96 countries. What evidence that this is only 'American' sensitivity that caused this thread?
It seems Apple is being forced to stay out of that big market because of that moralism. If they just decided to allow it and make a mature section of the iStore we would even get much better content than the iBoobs we have today.
Who is saying they are being forced.
The fact is that a significant number of users are complaining, and that nobody that I have ever heard of except the store owner, wants to see an XXX-Rated video store in their neighborhood.
One of Apple's primary audiences for the iPod and iPhones is kids. Most of their iPods are paid for by their parents. Even their iTunes Store accounts are as well.
To suggest that putting an Adult Section in the iTunes store would satisfy everybody is ludicrous.
Apple is a corporation that has rightfully decided on how, what, where and when it can sell its products. If Apple is wrong, their sales will suffer and their shareholders will demand change. I can't for the life of me imagine that either will every happen; or getting an XXX-rated section into your local high school library.
You know, Apple wants to keep a squeaky clean appearance for the public. They don't want some stupid running this app on the subway for all to see. It is not good for Apple. Their public relations guys hopefully had a say in this. I support Apple on this. All you complaining freedom-loving guys out there, grow up!
Why don't they just add two black mouse ears to the iPad for handles- problem solved.
So when does Apple Inc relocate to Salt Lake City?
Soon, I hope!
Do you really think that there is an absolute disconnect between adult entertainment and child porn?
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't/shouldn't need or make it easier to get involved.
No I don't think there is an absolute disconnect between adult entertainment and child porn, and neither did I imply this disconnect. In fact I mentioned sexual predation, not child sexual predation, and certainly not child porn.
I will reiterate: to link the consumption of adult entertainment to sexual predation would be just plain stupid.
Specifically, there is no evidence linking the viewing of adult entertainment (pornography or erotica) with sexual predation of any kind, let alone child sexual predation. This is not the argument that you have argued against.
That there is (spurious) evidence linking the viewing of child pornography to child abuse says nothing of the link between consuming legal adult entertainment and sexual predation of any kind. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in looking at child pornography already has a sexual desire for children, which is something that society does not yet have adequate measures to address or control.
That "child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry" or that "approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography" says nothing about the link between consuming legal adult entertainment and any involvement with child pornography, let alone involvement with child sexual abuse.
I would strongly refute the implication that making adult entertainment available in any way legitimately aids or abets child sexual predation.
You know, Apple wants to keep a squeaky clean appearance for the public. They don't want some stupid running this app on the subway for all to see. It is not good for Apple. Their public relations guys hopefully had a say in this. I support Apple on this. All you complaining freedom-loving guys out there, grow up!
I still think it's funny that you can find the SI Swimsuit application, which has content at least as bad or worse than any of the banned apps. I support Apple keeping any image they want, and enforcing any rules they want. It would just be nice if the rules were the same for SI and small developers--and actually spelled out.
And you think that it only happens in the US?Even in Brazil
Why your constant insistence on conflating adult entertainment with child porn? Surely you are watering down the absolute horrendousness of child porn by lumping it in with adult entertainment under the general heading "porn"?
Are the fundamentalist nutbags that I assume complained to Apple also the teabagging idiots screaming "I want my country back! Big Government get out of my medicine cabinet! Obama is a Nazi Socialist!" Seems like they only mind censorship when it doesn't agree with them. FAIL.
Honestly, you have no class and I pity you for your comment. Freedom is wonderful when it is not abused, and to protect it from abuse so that others may enjoy it, you establish laws that are based on moral principles and virtues. Many which you ignorantly enjoy today! If Apple has a philosophy about how it runs the company, they are in the complete right to do so. In my opinion, it is honorable what they are doing.
Stop being a blind and ignorant base head, I feel so sorry for your children with that attitude.
Censorship is a problem when it is managed by the government, not private corporations.
That is when your rights are being infringed.
I disagree. That my rights are not being infringed does not say anything of the ethics or morals of the situation. I believe censorship is immoral in most instances, and thus I am opposed to it regardless of whether it affects my rights.
People telling Apple what they should be selling is far stupider than Apple deciding what to sell.
Most are not telling Apple what they should be selling, they are arguing against Apple's decision to censor. Suggesting that a company act in a more responsible manner is not the same as mandating what they can and cannot sell.
I never said it did.
Apple is a corporation that has rightfully decided on how, what, where and when it can sell its products.
I agree. And no one is discussing whether they can or can't do anything. It is (was) a discussion on the ethics behind that decision.
I would strongly refute the implication that making adult entertainment available in any way legitimately aids or abets child sexual predation.
Then I would suggest that you tell that to the authors who stated,
Why your constant insistence on conflating adult entertainment with child porn? Surely you are watering down the absolute horrendousness of child porn by lumping it in with adult entertainment under the general heading "porn"?
If you go back, you will see that my original issue was in reference to a comment that Apple should create a ""Backroom" Adult Category?" like that would prevent children from accessing 'overtly sexual' content.
Government policy in most parts of the world is about letting adults decide for themselves what's reasonable, with protection for minors. It's a system that works very, very well in accomodating liberty and choice. Apple could do a lot worse than understand this and ensure that their rules match the real rules which were passed by our representatives in Congress, as reflected by us all as constituents.
I don't like the new Apple overlords.
Government policy in most parts of the world is about letting adults decide for themselves what's reasonable, with protection for minors. It's a system that works very, very well in accomodating liberty and choice. Apple could do a lot worse than understand this and ensure that their rules match the real rules which were passed by our representatives in Congress, as reflected by us all as constituents.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule Apple's decision? And where does the American Constitution support such findings now?
As one highly learned in this field (World Political Sciences), I would be pleased to read for that matter, anything at all that to support your contentions.
Remember, the Apple iTunes App Store isn't just about the U.S.
The real hilarity in the article is the official letter from Apple, in which they suggest in all lawyerly professionial seriousness that, perhaps... the developer wishes to re-write "Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored)" so that it's not about... jiggling breasts?
That made me chuckle too. I bet the kid at Apple who sent out the letter was smirking at that, as well.
The real hilarity in the article is the official letter from Apple, in which they suggest in all lawyerly professionial seriousness that, perhaps... the developer wishes to re-write "Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored)" so that it's not about... jiggling breasts?
Keep the name. And make it into an adventure game, something about dealing with the policies of some fruit company....
Absolutely, and which gets to my point: It's a matter of making responsible choices.
It will be interesting to see how Apple navigates this.
Apple, being a private company, has every right to do this. We, as consumers and citizens of a free country, have every right to buy/not buy/boycott/celebrate the iPhone, but we also every right to criticize Apple's decision on any rational basis, regardless of our consumer decision of buying or using the device. Apple is censoring content - and they have every right to do that, just as anyone has the right to criticize their decision and call it censorship. But just because you own/use an iPhone doesn't mean you've forfeited your right to criticize its manufacturer - you just can't sue them. I'm sure they were already banning hard-core/snuff/child porn from the iPhone and nobody raised a stink - although anyone would have been accurate to call that censorship as well; that's just censorship with a different standard that more people agree with.
It's not censorship in the same way that authoritarian governments censor, but it is private, self-censorship, which the private-enterprise system supports and, it's likely, the overwhelming consensus is that we do support certain standard of censorship - especially against illegal content. E.g., there are no apps (or legit web sites) for finding the nearest cocaine dealer. But did Apple draw the line at the right place, or did they go too far? Jiggling boobs "offend" some people and may be inappropriate for children under a certain age whose parents believe jiggling boobs might upset their children (I guess). OK, well, how about gay dating services? Patently offensive to a huge number of people in this country and around the world who would also argue that exposure to such a forum would damage their children in some way - and Apple would have every "right" to remove this content on the same basis that they made this decision. And the public would have every right to celebrate this or call it censorship and discrimination against a minority (a minority protected in certain ways in certain parts of the country but also sanctioned against by the federal government and many local governments). Don't care because you hate gays? God bless you; how about mixed-race dating? Or cross-religion dating? Or Jews-only dating? Or atheist-content apps, or fundamentalist-Christian or Muslim or Hindu apps? Plenty of people find much of what fundamentalists say as patently offensive - how about censoring them? Video games involving shooting machine guns at Arabs might be considered offensive and damaging to children - how about removing that content?
I wouldn't want there to be easy access to hard-core or snuff or child porn apps, but there are laws against two of those and easy ways to block child access to the rest. Jiggling boobs are perfectly legal and, objectively, harmless to adults if viewed in private (and content delivered to a privately-owned device is private). If your adult sensibilities are offended, avert your eyes - a enforced puritan experience in a public forum is an oxymoron. And although the app store isn't technically a public forum, it's certainly presenting itself that way most of the time. If parents are concerned about inappropriate, but legal, content being delivered to their child on an iPhone, responsible parenting means tightly monitoring and censoring the content themselves, or they can replace the iPhone with a device not capable of delivering the entire internet. Apple censoring jiggling boobs is just taking the role of parent off of parent's shoulders. They have every right to do coddle that market, despite that it looks asinine (to some), but anyone would be correct in calling them out for excessive censorship on behalf of lazy parents and puritans.