PDA

View Full Version : Apple Censors 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone Application




clevin
Aug 5, 2009, 12:45 PM
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/apples-new-low-censoring-a-dictionary/#continued
http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords
Apple censored an English dictionary.
A dictionary. A reference book. For words contained in all reasonable dictionaries. For words contained in dictionaries that are used every day in elementary school libraries and classrooms.
"We were rejected for objectionable content. They provided screenshots of the words '****' and '****' showing up in our dictionary's search results. What's interesting is that we spent a good deal of time making it so that you must type vulgar words in their entirety, and only then will we show you suggestions in the search results. For instance, if you type 'fuc', you will not see '****' as a suggestion. This is in contrast to all other dictionaries we're aware of on the App Store (including Dictionary.com's application), which will show you '****' in the search results for 'fuc', '****************' for 'mother', etc."

In essence, you would have to already know the word in order to be able to look it up in the app -- your mind would have had to be already poisoned with the sinful idea.



sl1200mk2
Aug 5, 2009, 01:16 PM
Completely ridiculous.

I'm not giving up my iphone anytime soon, but Apple will definitely lose some degree of market share from people willing to move to more open or at least better policy defined platforms like Android and Palm. Google and Palm are more than happy to pick up and capitalize on all the apps and functionality Apple seems to be willing to give away. Case in point, the Google Voice apps that were pulled.

KingYaba
Aug 5, 2009, 01:31 PM
That's pretty pathetic.

MacRumors
Aug 5, 2009, 02:35 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/08/05/apple-censors-ninjawords-dictionary-iphone-application/)

Daring Fireball's John Gruber reports (http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords) on the case of Ninjawords Dictionary (http://ninjawords.com/) [App Store (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=316377359&mt=8), $1.99], a dictionary application for the iPhone based on Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org/) offering a high-quality user experience and information content that was recently approved by Apple for inclusion in the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple's approval process for the application required several months and multiple rounds of refinement for the application, ultimately resulting the application carrying a "17+" age rating and also lacking a number of words deemed "objectionable" by Apple's reviewers.Apple censored an English dictionary.

A dictionary. A reference book. For words contained in all reasonable dictionaries. For words contained in dictionaries that are used every day in elementary school libraries and classrooms.Gruber's lengthy post details the seemingly ridiculous hoops the application's developers jumped through to win Apple's approval, from adding the mature age rating to preventing "objectionable" words from appearing as suggestions for partial word matches when searching to finally removing the "objectionable" words entirely. A number of the words that Apple objected to and have been removed from the application also carry entirely non-objectionable definitions, and it is unclear why those entire entries were required to be removed instead of merely the offending definitions for those words.Every time I think I've seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I'm soon proven wrong. I can't imagine what it will take to top this one.

Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day.

Article Link: Apple Censors 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone Application (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/08/05/apple-censors-ninjawords-dictionary-iphone-application/)

ouimetnick
Aug 5, 2009, 02:41 PM
Apple's own dictionary on OS X. has the definition for words like *****, a*s, b*tch and more. Apple must remove safari from the iPhone , as anyone can view porn and bad things on Safari on the iPhone.

DUMB Apple! ;(:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

dejo
Aug 5, 2009, 02:47 PM
Sounds very similar to the hoops that my company, Another Roadside Attraction, had to jump through in order to get our craigslist app, CraigsHarvest, approved. It took over two months of back and forth with Apple to finally get it OKed. First, we had to remove the Personals and Erotic Services categories (this was back in December before craigslist moved Erotic to Adult and way before ratings; we've been allowed to include those in our latest version). That wasn't sufficient, though. We also had to prevent the user from using search terms of profane words. And we had to guess what that list of objectionable words was. Apple never gave us any direction as to what that might be, other than to provide specific examples of searches that weren't allowed. We could never get an answer to the question "what are all the other words you find objectionable?".

griz
Aug 5, 2009, 02:49 PM
The App approval process must go through a series of people who are oblivious to the rest of the world around them. I love my Mac, but I am beginning to think that Apple is run by a bunch of people with their heads buried in ** Censored ;) **.

Stargaze
Aug 5, 2009, 03:01 PM
Someone needs to put an end to this pointless "REVIEW" process apple has in place..

they are Playing "God" and for some reasons i see why but they are taking their power and going too far!

ilfn143
Aug 5, 2009, 03:03 PM
what's next? i can't type those words in "Notes" or "Calendar"? can i? i better double check...

Doctor Q
Aug 5, 2009, 03:13 PM
This is extremely draconian of Apple. I wonder if the bad publicity will get them to change their minds.

In the meantime, I guess Urban Dictionary isn't going to become an iPhone app anytime soon.

rockosmodurnlif
Aug 5, 2009, 03:15 PM
Well, there'd never be a George Carlin app.

dasmb
Aug 5, 2009, 03:16 PM
The App approval process must go through a series of people who are oblivious to the rest of the world around them. I love my Mac, but I am beginning to think that Apple is run by a bunch of people with their heads buried in ** Censored ;) **.

Let's say there's a set of criteria for rating an app. And let's say that criteria states that the use of certain language is grounds for a higher rating.

If an app has its rating increased for using this language -- even if it's only to define it -- this isn't being oblivious, it's being consistent.

Besides -- this isn't a set in-memory dictionary with content developed and controlled by Ninja -- it's a window on user generated content. If an app is based on user content, and that content isn't policed, technically there's no way to judge that app's age appropriateness. Similar to the "ESRB will change when you go online" warning with games, once you enter an unpoliced environment the complexity of maintaining age propriety increases dramatically. I could, for example, visit the Wiktionary site and edit the entry for "feather" to include an erotic example. It's likely that the entry would be reverted -- but not guaranteed, and certainly can't be guaranteed by the app's authors.

Of course, they could likely offer an in-memory dictionary with the same functionality, omit the naughty bits and obtain a different rating...but that would require owning the distribution rights to the content.

In the end, though, who gives a ****. If a parent has to clear their child's purchase of an application, that's about as much of a censorship issue as their having to sign a permission slip for them to watch an R rated movie.

jazz4ivo
Aug 5, 2009, 03:27 PM
Apple are starting to piss me off to be honest with their stupid review process. I hope the FCC gives them more stick and make them change their tunes (pun intended)!!

Eso
Aug 5, 2009, 03:31 PM
It's clear that the only solution that will make every party happy is sllowing apps to be purchased and downloaded directly from the developers and imported directly into iTunes.

Apple wins because they can approve/reject any app they want without everyone getting into a big fuss.

Developers win because they don't have to submit to Apples subject review to reach their market.

Consumers win because they won't be limited to apps deemed appropriate by a coporation.

griz
Aug 5, 2009, 03:45 PM
Let's say there's a set of criteria for rating an app. And let's say that criteria states that the use of certain language is grounds for a higher rating.

If an app has its rating increased for using this language -- even if it's only to define it -- this isn't being oblivious, it's being consistent.

Well then they should apply that same consistency to Safari. It is an App that gets content outside its own code. If they are going to police everyone else who creates an app that gathers content, then they need to police themselves. And stay consistent.
But wait there is another side to the coin. USE SOME JUDGEMENT!!. Obviously Apple feels that it is ridiculous to police Safari given it is a web browser. Well then they need to find a way to allow content delivery apps by posting, as you said, a "rating may change" warning when you go to download it. Otherwise, they need to back off, and leave these developers alone.

Doctor Q
Aug 5, 2009, 03:47 PM
It's clear that the only solution that will make every party happy is sllowing apps to be purchased and downloaded directly from the developers and imported directly into iTunes.
It's not clear to me.

If the approval process protects me from faulty, misadvertised, or malicious software, or produces ratings that help me make informed choices, I don't mind Apple's approval process, even if it causes release delays. Buying directly sounds tempting but could invite risks I'd rather avoid.

On the other hand, if Apple prevents me from buying apps I might want, or causes developers to remove features of their apps I might want to use, then Apple's heavy-handedness is hurting me as a consumer.

It's the latter case for anyone who wanted to buy this dictionary app.

toddgarvin
Aug 5, 2009, 03:49 PM
So... let me see...
I can't view "dirty" words on my iPhone, but I can open the Dictionary app that comes with EVERY MAC and see all the "dirty" words I want??
Can Apple be any more hypocritical??

WTF?

griz
Aug 5, 2009, 03:49 PM
It's clear that the only solution that will make every party happy is sllowing apps to be purchased and downloaded directly from the developers and imported directly into iTunes.

Apple wins because they can approve/reject any app they want without everyone getting into a big fuss.

Developers win because they don't have to submit to Apples subject review to reach their market.

Consumers win because they won't be limited to apps deemed appropriate by a coporation.

I think you miss the point of why Apple does this. They don't want unapproved apps being loaded onto the phone. 2 main reasons. They don't want malicious code being anywhere near the iPhone and secondly they want control of the outward appearance of the phone's contents. In other words, by approving the apps, they guarantee the users showing off their iphone will be showing off only what they know they have cleared. Keeps the waters clean so to speak. Not that I agree with part 2 though.

pimentoLoaf
Aug 5, 2009, 03:56 PM
The gov't's investigation of Apple over App approval can come none too soon.

The Phazer
Aug 5, 2009, 04:00 PM
Apple's app review panel needs a good sorting out frankly. It's a shambles.

Phazer

slu
Aug 5, 2009, 04:13 PM
I think you miss the point of why Apple does this. They don't want unapproved apps being loaded onto the phone. 2 main reasons. They don't want malicious code being anywhere near the iPhone and secondly they want control of the outward appearance of the phone's contents. In other words, by approving the apps, they guarantee the users showing off their iphone will be showing off only what they know they have cleared. Keeps the waters clean so to speak. Not that I agree with part 2 though.

The main reason Apple does this is to get their 30%.

What is happening now is downright ludicrous. The GV Mobile episode drove me to jailbreak, and I am glad I did. I only use two apps from Cydia (Cycorder and GV Mobile), but just the satisfaction that I can do what I want with MY phone is worth it. And how easy it is to do. I knew it was easy, but I didn't think it would be that easy.

Eso
Aug 5, 2009, 04:18 PM
It's not clear to me.

Apps would still be available in the App Store, subject to Apple's approval, but they wouldn't be exlusive to the Appe store alone.

If a developers app gets rejected, they could simply offer it through their own channels and fund their own advertising, distributing, etc.

If functionality of an app is restricted on the App store, the developer could also market it through their own efforts, which would be great for apps like Skype, Slingplayer, etc.

They don't want malicious code being anywhere near the iPhone

Apps are still produced with the official SDK. It's nice that they want to keep malicious code out (has any app EVER been rejected from the app store for malicious code?), but that is their store. I don't need Apple to babysit me so I don't get malicous code on my iPhone. Luckily the App store would still exist for those that do.

secondly they want control of the outward appearance of the phone's contents. In other words, by approving the apps, they guarantee the users showing off their iphone will be showing off only what they know they have cleared.

Obviously this is just where they are plain wrong, but I agree that it is rather the motivation to make the 30% commission. Apple is too stubborn to change on their own, so hopefully the FCC inquiry and this type of press will force their hand.

Silencio
Aug 5, 2009, 04:25 PM
Apple are starting to piss me off to be honest with their stupid review process. I hope the FCC gives them more stick and make them change their tunes (pun intended)!!

How exactly does the FCC have jurisdiction over the App Store WRT a dictionary app? And even if they did, you think they would go after Apple for not allowing naughty words? :rolleyes:

Agreed that Apple is really doing a horrible job with the App Store and the app approval process in general. They need to be a lot more clear, communicative, and consistent with developers as to what is acceptable and what is not, and they should give developers specific advice on how to fix their apps.

Couldn't a dictionary app in theory tie in to the parental controls in iPhone 3.0 and block the "bad" words from users who are parentally controlled? Couldn't the developers add that functionality to their app?

On the other hand, we all know what would happen if Apple let an app like this through with the "bad" words intact: some high school kid would look up said words, their parents would find out about it, they'd run to their lawyer and attempt to sue the pants off of Apple.

esquire360
Aug 5, 2009, 04:34 PM
Well, there'd never be a George Carlin app.

LOL, snoop dog got an app... I'd tell apple to stick it up their *** but they would not be able to define what that was.

rdowns
Aug 5, 2009, 04:36 PM
On the other hand, we all know what would happen if Apple let an app like this through with the "bad" words intact: some high school kid would look up said words, their parents would find out about it, they'd run to their lawyer and attempt to sue the pants off of Apple.


Then why do all Macs ship with Dictionary.app and all its "objectionable" words?

Tsuius
Aug 5, 2009, 04:39 PM
the app itself looks somewhat unusual. The app examples and the description on itunes are mostly about killing, buccaneers and historical militant groups?!? And there is a real ninja lurking in the program.

WTF?

Looks like garbage to me. Maybe Apple is right...

gabe90
Aug 5, 2009, 04:39 PM
This is extremely draconian of Apple. I wonder if the bad publicity will get them to change their minds.

In the meantime, I guess Urban Dictionary isn't going to become an iPhone app anytime soon.
My exact thought! I would love to see an Urban Dictionary App. I guess it'll never happen.

To the points about Apple's own dictionary on OSX being a point of contention, do you guys think that this indicates AT&T's involvement in the App screening process? Or that they had a stipulation in the initial contract saying that Apple had to act in this stupid manner?

It just doesn't make sense! Stop ******* things up Apple! You're making it hard for me to switch from Verizon which I was gonna do next month.

corydoras
Aug 5, 2009, 04:52 PM
To the points about Apple's own dictionary on OSX being a point of contention, do you guys think that this indicates AT&T's involvement in the App screening process? Or that they had a stipulation in the initial contract saying that Apple had to act in this stupid manner?
month.

Assuming these business follow some sort of logic, it has to be a combination of Apple and AT&T:

1) If the restrictions were removed, everyone would just use Skype, bypassing all the phone providers complex and expensive phone plans. Turning the phone network into a "dumb" data network, which the phone companies will stop at anything to prevent.

2) Approving some dictionaries with swear words, and rejecting other dictionaries with the exact same content? Sounds like a broken process plain and simple.

(For the record its the same with Chinese dictionaries! Some are approved and some of the better ones are rejected)

Ted13
Aug 5, 2009, 04:56 PM
Sounds very similar to the hoops that my company, Another Roadside Attraction, had to jump through in order to get our craigslist app, CraigsHarvest, approved. It took over two months of back and forth with Apple to finally get it OKed. First, we had to remove the Personals and Erotic Services categories (this was back in December before craigslist moved Erotic to Adult and way before ratings; we've been allowed to include those in our latest version). That wasn't sufficient, though. We also had to prevent the user from using search terms of profane words. And we had to guess what that list of objectionable words was. Apple never gave us any direction as to what that might be, other than to provide specific examples of searches that weren't allowed. We could never get an answer to the question "what are all the other words you find objectionable?".
You guys should have written John Gruber, and bitched loudly and publicly (it's not too late). This BS has to stop!

MattSepeta
Aug 5, 2009, 04:56 PM
I was considering switching from verizon to grab an iphone.

but then I started seeing how pathetically limp-wristed and maniacal Apple is handling every aspect of their phone.

**** that, I am fine with my samsung 4 year old flip phone. :cool:


stupid stupid stupid apple. I hope the iphone crashes hard.

Compile 'em all
Aug 5, 2009, 04:59 PM
Apple is starting to really get on my nerves.

sishaw
Aug 5, 2009, 05:05 PM
This is the problem with censoring content--it's a slippery slope. What is Apple going to do, start removing rap and hip-hop songs and e-books (Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)? Heck, even at least one Joni Mitchell song has an f-bomb.

All Apple needs to do is make sure apps have the appropriate content advisories on them. The only apps that should actually be barred from the store are ones where the programming has a technical problem (and I would hope that Apple would work with the developer to solve it), where there is an IP issue, or where Google Voice is involved. No, wait, just kidding about that last one.

jbcaro
Aug 5, 2009, 05:25 PM
Apple have become the Big Brother that they rallied against back in 1984.:mad::mad::mad:

Cartoonkid
Aug 5, 2009, 05:26 PM
My exact thought! I would love to see an Urban Dictionary App. I guess it'll never happen.

To the points about Apple's own dictionary on OSX being a point of contention, do you guys think that this indicates AT&T's involvement in the App screening process? Or that they had a stipulation in the initial contract saying that Apple had to act in this stupid manner?

It just doesn't make sense! Stop ******* things up Apple! You're making it hard for me to switch from Verizon which I was gonna do next month.

At least we can still access Uban Dictionary via Safari on the iPhone. They haven't taken that away from us yet! ;)

SpinThis!
Aug 5, 2009, 05:27 PM
These rejections are getting a little ridiculous. While I'm not going giving up on the app store yet, I'm with Gruber here and it does make me stop and think "wtf is next?"

I really wouldn't go so far as to say Apple is draconian—that's a strong word. It seems a lot of times what gets approved is dependent on the reviewer, his mood, her moodswings, etc. Apple's management needs to tighten this process up. Jobs needs to smack some people around.

Everyone complaining here should also voice their comments to Apple, particularly the sjobs e-mail. Maybe something can be done... I see a lot of bitching on blogs but nobody mentions sending anything to a higher-up.

ruinfx
Aug 5, 2009, 05:29 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/08/05/app-store-rejections-tied-to-third-party-rights-infringements/

apparently e-book readers arent allowed either

tk421
Aug 5, 2009, 06:55 PM
Apple's own dictionary on OS X. has the definition for words like *****, a*s, b*tch and more. Apple must remove safari from the iPhone , as anyone can view porn and bad things on Safari on the iPhone.

So... let me see...
I can't view "dirty" words on my iPhone, but I can open the Dictionary app that comes with EVERY MAC and see all the "dirty" words I want??
Can Apple be any more hypocritical??

Then why do all Macs ship with Dictionary.app and all its "objectionable" words?

To be fair, the dictionary in OS X is subject to parental controls. There is an option in System Preferences to filter out profanity. And Safari (on iPhone and OS X) is subject to parental controls as well.

It seems silly that a dictionary app is rated 17+, but I suppose I can understand that. Either that or provide parental controls within individual apps (which would be a huge headache to implement, and is probably unrealistic).

HOWEVER, if the app is rated 17+ then it should not be censored at all. It is what it is. The parental controls are in place for app ratings.

Doctor Q
Aug 5, 2009, 07:16 PM
do you guys think that this indicates AT&T's involvement in the App screening process?
The answer may come from the FCC (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/31/fcc-investigating-apples-rejection-of-google-voice-iphone-application/).

pdjudd
Aug 5, 2009, 08:29 PM
The answer may come from the FCC (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/31/fcc-investigating-apples-rejection-of-google-voice-iphone-application/).

That assumes that AT&T will actually provide something beyond a non-denial response that denies involvement. I have a strong suspicion that AT&T is never going to admit to anything that would implicate wrong doing. I also think that Apple wouldn't either. There is going to be alot of he said she said that goes down to confidentiality agreements between the two companies.

guzhogi
Aug 5, 2009, 08:44 PM
Next thing you'll know, Apple will reject a medical textbook app because it talks about the anatomy of breasts, penises (sp?) and so forth or a recipe book that calls for chicken breasts because it contains "breast".

mavis
Aug 5, 2009, 09:25 PM
The gov't's investigation of Apple over App approval can come none too soon.
Indeed; this is absolutely ludicrous. :mad:

Stella
Aug 5, 2009, 10:38 PM
Apple: The puritans of the IT world!

kdarling
Aug 6, 2009, 12:08 AM
Next thing you'll know, Apple will reject a medical textbook app because it talks about the anatomy of breasts, penises (sp?) and so forth or a recipe book that calls for chicken breasts because it contains "breast".

Apple does ridiculously key in on words out of context sometimes.

I remember a note posted in Apple's forum about the rural carriers' request to get access to devices like the iPhone. Because it's a formal document, it is called a "Petition to the FCC".

The post was deleted, because "petitions are not allowed in the forum". Right, legal petitions (requests) are the same as reader signature petitions in the eyes of the idiot Apple moderators.

Apple sure seems to hire some not-so-bright people for their store and forums.

stuckwithme247
Aug 6, 2009, 12:08 AM
I don't own an iPhone, but let me tell you, if I decided to pay over twice as much as I am paying now for my monthly bill, I would at definitely expect to be allowed to install whatever applications I want onto the device.

If they're gonna put some rating on it like a movie or an album they should at least allow it to be an uncensored version of the program.

Darkroom
Aug 6, 2009, 12:51 AM
not only does it have the word listed, but the free Dictionary.com App (http://wzus1.reference.com/r?t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51522&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a5c4249&ip=188a3b39&u=http%3A%2F%2Fitunes.apple.com%2FWebObjects%2FMZStore.woa%2Fwa%2FviewSoftware%3Fid%3D308750436%26mt %3D8) (which is great, by the way) also pronounces it for us! :D... i like hearing my iPod Touch swear!

This is solid proof that the app store is extremely flawed. in addition to this new dictionary being refused, while there is no porn allowed we have apps like "Bikini XXX" (or whatever it's called) making top 25 list. it's almost as if a conservative apple employee works on app store submissions monday and wednesday, while moderates work the remaining days. let's hope for apple's sake that apps are pre-screened with buggy software that makes these foolish decisions.

admanimal
Aug 6, 2009, 12:51 AM
The gov't's investigation of Apple over App approval can come none too soon.

I don't know what you expect the government to do. The App Store is a store owned by Apple, who has the right to control what does or does not appear in it regardless of how ridiculous some of their decisions seem, just like Walmart can decide not to sell certain movies/CDs/candy bars for whatever reasons they choose.

The only reason the FCC is investigating the Google Voice issue is because of possible anticompetitive practices by a communications company (AT&T).

str1f3
Aug 6, 2009, 02:11 AM
I don't know what you expect the government to do. The App Store is a store owned by Apple, who has the right to control what does or does not appear in it regardless of how ridiculous some of their decisions seem, just like Walmart can decide not to sell certain movies/CDs/candy bars for whatever reasons they choose.

The only reason the FCC is investigating the Google Voice issue is because of possible anticompetitive practices by a communications company (AT&T).

Unfortunately that's true. The only options are to either jailbreak your phone or buy a competing product and help send a messaga to Apple.

People say that Apple should fix their App Store policies but I think they like it how it is. They have leeway to reject an app whenever they feel like it and some of these insane choices (mature ratings for apps that access a browser) seem to be mandated from people higher up. I'm personally getting sick and tired of updating my apps and continually getting this 17+ rating alert.

spillproof
Aug 6, 2009, 02:21 AM
Oh dear god. Apple is on a "its all mine" spree.

carmenodie
Aug 6, 2009, 02:33 AM
Oh shut the hell up already. All of a sudden you start to cry over a flipping app rejection?!
You folks need to calm your a** down and stop with all this high school drama.
But if you really feel the way you do, gone on to Android. Bye! Don't let the door hit your a** on the way out.
Besides, you're probably in that 16-24 demographic anyway. Yall jump ship in the blink of an eye like there is no tomorrow.

iphones4evry1
Aug 6, 2009, 03:12 AM
Censoring a dictionary? That's pretty low.

If rejection of Google Voice didn't tick of the FCC, this sure will !!!

Apple might as well have just called up the FCC and said "Hey! Over here! Look at us!"

.

niuniu
Aug 6, 2009, 04:41 AM
Looks like a case of head up as5 syndrome...

Cybbe
Aug 6, 2009, 04:44 AM
I sent the following email to sjobs@apple.com:

Seriously, you ban "objectionable" words from dictionaries, and put on a 17+ label? You should think about your reputation. Apple is starting to smell, and people are taking notice.

http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords

Regards,

XXXXX

I got this response:

This article is very inaccurate and untrue.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone


Don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I assume we have another case of an overzealous employee.

MarkAK
Aug 6, 2009, 06:29 AM
If it was the government censoring this material I would have a problem.

A company doing this does not bother me. In fact I think more companies need to act more responsible in this day and age. Maybe we all should get back to our moral beliefs.

admanimal
Aug 6, 2009, 07:10 AM
Censoring a dictionary? That's pretty low.

If rejection of Google Voice didn't tick of the FCC, this sure will !!!

Apple might as well have just called up the FCC and said "Hey! Over here! Look at us!"

.

Do you even know what the FCC does? They couldn't care less about what software Apple sells in their store, unless AT&T is potentially involved like with the Google Voice issue. The only reason the FCC cares about Google Voice is because there is a question of whether AT&T is involved with restricting voice communication over it's mobile network.

str1f3
Aug 6, 2009, 08:43 AM
If it was the government censoring this material I would have a problem.

A company doing this does not bother me. In fact I think more companies need to act more responsible in this day and age. Maybe we all should get back to our moral beliefs.

It bothers me because if all companies did this then it has the same kind of effect as gov't censorship. When one company sets a precedent like this, it makes it creates a slippery slope for others to follow suit if it goes unchecked.

I don't know what this has to do with corporate responsibility or moral beliefs. I'd rather have companies take responsibility for their products safety, the effect on the environment, treatment of workers and health care. The last thing I want is from any corporation is to tell me how to think.

sishaw
Aug 6, 2009, 09:03 AM
If it was the government censoring this material I would have a problem.

A company doing this does not bother me. In fact I think more companies need to act more responsible in this day and age. Maybe we all should get back to our moral beliefs.

Well, the government couldn't because of the First Amendment, so this is essentially a false comparison. Would it offend you if Little, Brown censored some of the famous language from Catcher in the Rye (I don't mean to pick on that book, it's just one of the more famous examples), or if Random House censored Ulysses by James Joyce? It would certainly offend me.

I don't know which gets me more upset, the fact that people have so mortgaged their freedom of thought that they believe a few bad words in a book will damage their morals, or the fact that people are willing to let corporations babysit them.

I REALLY hope that you just put up this post to get a rise out of other people, and that you don't believe this (quoted) nonsense.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:15 AM
It bothers me because if all companies did this then it has the same kind of effect as gov't censorship. When one company sets a precedent like this, it makes it creates a slippery slope for others to follow suit if it goes unchecked.

I don't know what this has to do with corporate responsibility or moral beliefs. I'd rather have companies take responsibility for their products safety, the effect on the environment, treatment of workers and health care. The last thing I want is from any corporation is to tell me how to think.

The slippery slope theory is just a theory. You won't see Google or MSFT cutting out dirty words from their stores because their main argument will be "hey look, we don't censor" - of course this will result in a big massive pron shop.

Also, jumping all the way to "tell me how to think" is quite a bit further than Apple omitting objectionable words from an app that they are going to be marketing. If I was marketing something and I knew my head was on the chopping block I'd probably tend to stay on the safe side rather than piss off too many people.

Case and point - Apple got way, way, way more press for allowing that Baby Shaker app and the one that let you see topless women than they have for not allowing Google Voice (FCC might be looking at it but it wasn't a front page headline on CNN, MSNC, FoxNews, etc like the other two were).

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:18 AM
Well, the government couldn't because of the First Amendment, so this is essentially a false comparison. Would it offend you if Little, Brown censored some of the famous language from Catcher in the Rye (I don't mean to pick on that book, it's just one of the more famous examples), or if Random House censored Ulysses by James Joyce? It would certainly offend me.

I don't know which gets me more upset, the fact that people have so mortgaged their freedom of thought that they believe a few bad words in a book will damage their morals, or the fact that people are willing to let corporations babysit them.

I REALLY hope that you just put up this post to get a rise out of other people, and that you don't believe this (quoted) nonsense.

You'd be offended? Really? If something so little and trivial offends you I think you need to take a chill pill (or something similar). As I said before, Apple is signing up to market these apps and they don't want to be marketing things that will get a rise out of people - you get less bad press for disallowing something potentially questionable than you do for allowing it (Baby Shaker).

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:21 AM
question - Did apple ban the objectionable words from the Merriam Webster dictionary app? (they still have that app right?) If they didn't then it's obviously how the Ninja Dictionary went about the objectionable content and not the objectionable content itself.

sishaw
Aug 6, 2009, 09:31 AM
You'd be offended? Really? If something so little and trivial offends you I think you need to take a chill pill (or something similar). As I said before, Apple is signing up to market these apps and they don't want to be marketing things that will get a rise out of people - you get less bad press for disallowing something potentially questionable than you do for allowing it (Baby Shaker).

You WOULDN'T be offended if you couldn't buy an unexpurgated version of a great novel (or whatever), even if it is because of a corporate decision rather than a government violation of the First Amendment? That's shocking.

It wouldn't bother me so much if Apple weren't a bottleneck for these apps. As such, they have some (moral, not legal) responsibility to their consumers to behave reasonably. Reasonable in this context is to clearly label potentially objectionable content, but not to deprive consumers of it altogether. Apple is not anyone's nanny.

griz
Aug 6, 2009, 09:34 AM
HOWEVER, if the app is rated 17+ then it should not be censored at all. It is what it is. The parental controls are in place for app ratings.

Precisely. But do you know anyone with a 14 year old who knows more about the iPhone than the 14 year old does? Problem with parental controls is that most kids out there already have a jailbroken iphone and probably have 20 ways to get around the parental controls. About the only thing parental controls do is make parent feel better believing they are actually controlling something. They are naive if they think that the kid is not going to find a way around it.

crackermac
Aug 6, 2009, 09:35 AM
If you don't like these new rules, the only way to show Apple this makes a difference is to move to a competing device. It's Apples ball and they will do what they want. If they want to make it so only religious apps are allowed, then that's what will happen. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Sure, the censorship bugs me a little, but I wouldn't install this particular app anyway. It's still the best phone for me, so I'm sticking with it.

JMax1
Aug 6, 2009, 09:36 AM
If you want to play in their sandbox, you gotta play by their rules.

Pay the toll to the troll.


Plus it's some good advertising for your App.

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 09:40 AM
If you want to play in their sandbox, you gotta play by their rules.

Pay the toll to the troll.


Plus it's some good advertising for your App.

I'm tired of these ******* arguments.

Apple has no clear definition of their rules for approving/declining applications. If the rules were in place first, maybe their wouldn't be such an uproar.

I pay enough $ to Apple and AT&T, it's my device I should be able view and do what I please with it.

So please, spare us this pay the toll to the troll crap.

sishaw
Aug 6, 2009, 09:41 AM
If you don't like these new rules, the only way to show Apple this makes a difference is to move to a competing device.

It's one way, perhaps the most immediately effective way because it hits their bottom line, but not the only way. One could write to Apple, or write posts and articles, etc. I don't know to what extent Apple pays attention to these sorts of things, but I think they are somewhat sensitive to publicity.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:48 AM
You WOULDN'T be offended if you couldn't buy an unexpurgated version of a great novel (or whatever), even if it is because of a corporate decision rather than a government violation of the First Amendment? That's shocking.

It wouldn't bother me so much if Apple weren't a bottleneck for these apps. As such, they have some (moral, not legal) responsibility to their consumers to behave reasonably. Reasonable in this context is to clearly label potentially objectionable content, but not to deprive consumers of it altogether. Apple is not anyone's nanny.

It's a book, I really wouldn't care 1 iota - movies have been edited for ratings for decades yet there is no public outcry because they had to pull a sex scene from a movie to get it to PG-13. I mean, honestly, it offends you if they changed **** to fornicate or had passionate sex? All "dirty" words have replacement words or descriptions that can describe the exact same thing so it's really a non-issue to me.

Apple is their own nanny - they are doing what is best for their company. Not pissing off people is in their best interest and as a company they 1) have that right and 2) they have that responsibility to their share holders. If that means you don't get a ninja dictionary with **** in it so be it.

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 09:50 AM
^You seem to be missing the point.

THEY ARE CENSORING A DICTIONARY!

A DICTIONARY! A BOOK OF REFERENCE!

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:52 AM
I'm tired of these ******* arguments.

Apple has no clear definition of their rules for approving/declining applications. If the rules were in place first, maybe their wouldn't be such an uproar.

I pay enough $ to Apple and AT&T, it's my device I should be able view and do what I please with it.

So please, spare us this pay the toll to the troll crap.

You can do with it what you please but if you *want* to get something from apple then you're going to have to play by their rules because, after all, you're getting it from them. Wal-mart won't sell CDs with explicit lyrics - I think we should boycott them for censorship as well.

Oh, right, they, just like Apple, do what's in the best interest of their company and their share holders - end of story. (No company ever, ever, gives you anything unless they think it's going to benefit them by you buying their stuff - that's how this thing called free market works).

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 09:53 AM
You can do with it what you please but if you *want* to get something from apple then you're going to have to play by their rules because, after all, you're getting it from them. Wal-mart won't sell CDs with explicit lyrics - I think we should boycott them for censorship as well.

Oh, right, they, just like Apple, do what's in the best interest of their company and their share holders - end of story. (No company ever, ever, gives you anything unless they think it's going to benefit them by you buying their stuff - that's how this thing called free market works).

Wal-Mart is not directly censoring the CDs! They choose not to carry the explicit version. Apple is DIRECTLY censoring a dictionary.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 09:56 AM
^You seem to be missing the point.

THEY ARE CENSORING A DICTIONARY!

A DICTIONARY! A BOOK OF REFERENCE!

No has yet to answer the pertinent question - did they censor the Merriam Webster dictionary(my hunch is no but I really don't know)? If not then it's easily deduced that it wasn't as much about the objectionable content as it was how they went about it.

Are we seriously taking this guy's words to be 100% absolutely undeniable proof of what the problem was with his app? We're just going to say screw it - I don't care what Apple has to say - I'll just listen to this one guys fuming. He lost all credit when he said they are banning half the words SJ uses everyday - that's rabid sensationalism and has no point other than to discredit the author.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 10:00 AM
Wal-Mart is not directly censoring the CDs! They choose not to carry the explicit version. Apple is DIRECTLY censoring a dictionary.

Either way - still what's best in their companies interest (that's really the point I was after).

Like I said - Apple made a value judgment - is it worth potentially pissing off one group of people to allow and app or piss off a smaller, less vocal group of people (let's face it, the only people who are going to hear about this are apple fans on sites like this) and censor it?

Pretty easy call if you ask me. (Apple isn't the gov't they have no legal requirement to accept everything - they are a business and they are treating the approval/denial process as such).

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 10:05 AM
Either way - still what's best in their companies interest (that's really the point I was after).

Like I said - Apple made a value judgment - is it worth potentially pissing off one group of people to allow and app or piss off a smaller, less vocal group of people (let's face it, the only people who are going to hear about this are apple fans on sites like this) and censor it?

Pretty easy call if you ask me. (Apple isn't the gov't they have no legal requirement to accept everything - they are a business and they are treating the approval/denial process as such).

They are setting a very dangerous precedent. Who's to say they won't go further along and start banning things they deem inappropriate or wrong?

This is not a way to run a business, especially a booming business.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 10:11 AM
They are setting a very dangerous precedent. Who's to say they won't go further along and start banning things they deem inappropriate or wrong?

This is not a way to run a business, especially a booming business.

Their financial results would suggest otherwise. Also, as with most everything, censors usually start very stringent and then slowly fade over time (you can now use any word you want on cable TV after 10PM for example - when I was younger that was nothing but a pipe dream for Comedy Central). I don't think there's anyway that Apple would ever get *more* conservative in their approval process.

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 10:14 AM
Their financial results would suggest otherwise. Also, as with most everything, censors usually start very stringent and then slowly fade over time (you can now use any word you want on cable TV after 10PM for example - when I was younger that was nothing but a pipe dream for Comedy Central). I don't think there's anyway that Apple would ever get *more* conservative in their approval process.

You are referring to financial results from last quarter before all these recent apps being rejected/pulled.

Have they faded that much over time? It may appear that they have, but in all honesty it's just a drop in the bucket.

Really? All this news suggests otherwise.

dejo
Aug 6, 2009, 10:19 AM
IMHO (and I'm an iPhone developer, mind you), Apple can apply their rules however they see fit. It's their store and we have been given the privilege of using it to market and sell our own wares. My biggest concern (I have others), though, is when the App Review Team is totally inconsistent in how it applies those rules. It is very frustrating to have an app rejected for doing something that competing apps, or even previous versions of your own app, have been approved to do.

Which reminds me of this other post from Daring Fireball:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_reviewer

admanimal
Aug 6, 2009, 10:20 AM
Wal-Mart is not directly censoring the CDs! They choose not to carry the explicit version. Apple is DIRECTLY censoring a dictionary.

It's not like Apple accepted the app and then went through it themselves to take out words they didn't like; they gave the developer the choice of either censoring it or not being sold in the App Store. The exact same thing happens with CDs at Wal-Mart. If an artist wants their CD sold at Wal-Mart but it's too explicit (in Wal-Mart's opinion), they have to produce a censored version. If the artist won't, the CD won't get sold at Wal-Mart. This is exactly what happened with Green Day's latest CD. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/green-day-vs-walmart_n_206225.html)

sishaw
Aug 6, 2009, 10:56 AM
It's a book, I really wouldn't care 1 iota - movies have been edited for ratings for decades yet there is no public outcry because they had to pull a sex scene from a movie to get it to PG-13. I mean, honestly, it offends you if they changed **** to fornicate or had passionate sex?

OK, now you're just yanking my (former English Lit major's) chain. Although substituting '"have passionate sex" you' for the "f-you"s in Catcher would be amusing. A desecration of a great work of literature, but amusing.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 11:04 AM
OK, now you're just yanking my (former English Lit major's) chain. Although substituting '"have passionate sex" you' for the "f-you"s in Catcher would be amusing. A desecration of a great work of literature, but amusing.

Of course comparing a published work with one that isn't (an app) is a horrible comparison. I think of this more like the MPAA - if you want the PG-13 you don't drop the f-bomb (I think they maybe SLOWLY changing this but if you say it more than once I'm 100% certain your movie is destined to R). Showgirls had to be edited multiple times just to get it to NC-17. I'd surmise that Apple had actually told him he had to make it censored OR they'd make it 17+ but he took it to mean both and then subsequently censored it on his own and submitted it under the 17+ guidelines.

This is more like a movie and less like a book - the movie is being made and words can be changed in order to get approval - we're not going back and editing "dirty" words out books.

G58
Aug 6, 2009, 11:15 AM
Sounds to me as if someone may have just gone from 'God Complex' to finding God in the time it takes to replace a liver! - allegedly.

And don't mean that in a small way!

Steve Jobs is my absolute business hero. I admire totally the amazing turnaround he and his team [and he's built an amazing one] have achieved since 1997. I also admire the man, and can, at this distance, forgive his alleged diverse personality traits.

But major operations, like major trauma [sometimes there's little difference] can have a profound effect on people's personalities. Whilst I have no evidence that this is the case here, indeed it may well not be, I simply make the observation for the purpose of open discussion - a right we enjoy, to take the topic wherever it may reasonably go.

However, I disagree with censorship of most kinds, so whatever the real reason for going to the extraordinary lengths of forcing censorship on an English dictionary, I personally find it utterly ludicrous and ultimately counterproductive and retrograde move.

I do of course believe in censorship designed to protect children from exploitation of any kind, and from being exposed to what any reasonable person would regard as potentially harmful material.

But is a word potentially harmful? I would say not. Sure the free and unrestrained use of offensive words to, and in the presence of children, could possibly lead to those words being used by children. And that isn't good. But is preventing them from seeing these words in one app - until they're 17, any kind of effective way to police the situation?

Is this Apple simply looking to not get bad publicity from concerned parents, whilst at the same time infuriating and confusing the rest of us? I would suggest it is. I would also suggest it's pointless, given the millions of other places on the net where they can find these same words, and much much worse.

G58
Aug 6, 2009, 11:37 AM
Here's another thought:

American morals, where they influence censorship, are indeed perverse. The same society that has strict rules about people of all ages seeing a woman's nipples [and let's make no mistake, it's the nipples that 'offend'. See Janet Jackson's 2004 Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction"], allows them to see people being killed in TV dramas, and virtually everyone to own as many guns as they want.

Given these Calvinistic restrictions, I'd like to know who in US society it is who buys all the porn produced over there! Much like the period of prohibition, hypocrisy seems to rule the day.

And what kind of affirmative action is it that criminalises the majority's use of the word 'nigga' [and its variants], yet allows its broadcast in the context of so-called 'rap music', that extolls the merits of slappin' bitches and killin' cops?

Can anyone tell me if they bleeped 'The Wire' in broadcasts Stateside?

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 11:41 AM
Is this Apple simply looking to not get bad publicity from concerned parents, whilst at the same time infuriating and confusing the rest of us? I would suggest it is. I would also suggest it's pointless, given the millions of other places on the net where they can find these same words, and much much worse.

I think the point you're missing is that the concerned parents are far more powerful and have a much greater impact than "the rest of us" because, as I mentioned, "the rest of us" are those of us who frequent forums like MR. I know we like to think we're a little microcosm of society but we're really not, not even close. In this case it's very much the concerns of the many outweigh the concerns of the few (with, I'd suggest, at least 80% of the population really not giving a crap what Apple does and doesn't allow in the app store). Basically, the people they are worried about offending are far more active and care much more than those on the other side and a a business Apple has to make the moves that will help them make more $ and pissing off a group of concerned parents means much more to them than having a bunch of Mac Fans b!tching about censorship.

wlh99
Aug 6, 2009, 12:08 PM
It just occured to me that maybe Apples Legal team requires such strick rules because since Apple takes 1/3 of the purchase cost they are legally endorsing and takeing responsiblity for the app. (In the Lawyers opinion at least).

An easy fix, let us keep the money for our hard work.

Bubba Satori
Aug 6, 2009, 12:12 PM
http://www.calebbooker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/big_brother_theater.jpg

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 12:18 PM
It just occurred to me that maybe Apples Legal team requires such strict rules because since Apple takes 1/3 of the purchase cost they are legally endorsing and taking responsibility for the app. (In the Lawyers opinion at least).

An easy fix, let us keep the money for our hard work.

Well they are still marketing and selling the application so it's still stuck under Apple's legal bubble. The only other option is the windows way where you can get anything you want - obviously that opens up your phone to any kind of malicious software and I think that's ultimately why Apple chose to close the pool - the last thing they need is CNN headlining with "iPhones hacked - trade in your iPhone now." They've tried this kind of headline before but it's pretty quickly debunked or shown to only work on jailbroken phones but if Apple opened it up and didn't give people an official and certified location to get the apps you can be 100% certain there would be virus and trojans galore out there.

Big brother might limit some things but none of the things they've limited I really care about (other than tethering but the hack is so insanely simply there's really no reason not to have tethering on your phone) but guaranteeing me a safe environment to download apps is, at least IMO, worth the minor impact from Big Brother (in this singular application - I'm not supporting gov't be a big brother, they are far too corrupt for that, I'm just saying when it comes to my iPhone I prefer this way over the alternative)

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 12:18 PM
Phil Schiller responded to John Gruber over at Daring Fireball

Link (http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store)

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 12:26 PM
You are referring to financial results from last quarter before all these recent apps being rejected/pulled.

Have they faded that much over time? It may appear that they have, but in all honesty it's just a drop in the bucket.

Really? All this news suggests otherwise.

What news? A few bloggers b!tching about a supposed Apple rejection? Like I said - it's only news to those who frequent these sites - not the masses.

Also, as you just linked, it looks as tho I was right - it wasn't the content - it was how they went about it and rather than keep the 17+ tag and leave in words they submitted a censored version and didn't try to get the tag removed so they could go to market.

It all seems quite a bit less big brother now doesn't it?

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 12:28 PM
What news? A few bloggers b!tching about a supposed Apple rejection? Like I said - it's only news to those who frequent these sites - not the masses.

Also, as you just linked, it looks as tho I was right - it wasn't the content - it was how they went about it and rather than keep the 17+ tag and leave in words they submitted a censored version and didn't try to get the tag removed so they could go to market.

It all seems quite a bit less big brother now doesn't it?

Obviously it was a big deal for Phil Schiller to respond to it!

I still think it reeks to high heaven. That's just IMHO though.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 12:30 PM
Obviously it was a big deal for Phil Schiller to respond to it!

I still think it reeks to high heaven. That's just IMHO though.

Sure but it still didn't hit the masses - it stayed completely in the tech community (as opposed to Baby Shaker that was all over the major news sites).

Given apple's (recent) financial success I'm going to say that they know exactly what they are doing when it comes to making money.

As a side note - any idea how many sales of the Ninja dictionary this guy got because he went on a blog and, falsely, b!tched to high heaven?

EDIT: As a curious note how long until MR updates the article to show, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 12:35 PM
Sure but it still didn't hit the masses - it stayed completely in the tech community (as opposed to Baby Shaker that was all over the major news sites).

Given apple's (recent) financial success I'm going to say that they know exactly what they are doing when it comes to making money.

As a side note - any idea how many sales of the Ninja dictionary this guy got because he went on a blog and, falsely, b!tched to high heaven?

Do you defend Apple for everything?

Don't know, don't care. No desire to buy the App in the first place. I don't think he falsely bitched that much. His app was rejected and it wasn't clear why nor was he given any direction on how to fix it. That is a problem. You can't deny an app without giving a specific reason and a way to correct the problem.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 12:45 PM
Do you defend Apple for everything?

Don't know, don't care. No desire to buy the App in the first place. I don't think he falsely bitched that much. His app was rejected and it wasn't clear why nor was he given any direction on how to fix it. That is a problem. You can't deny an app without giving a specific reason and a way to correct the problem.

I defend businesses making business decisions - and that's exactly what this was and if you read Schiller's response (and believe it) it seems quite clear there was no ambiguity from apple - they found things there were deemed offensive beyond what in a normal dictionary, suggested they wait for parental controls. The company didn't want to wait so they edited it but didn't apply for a new lower rating and thus they got the 17+. I'm really not sure how that's not completely clear - it seems exceptionally straight forward to me.

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 12:49 PM
I defend businesses making business decisions - and that's exactly what this was and if you read Schiller's response (and believe it) it seems quite clear there was no ambiguity from apple - they found things there were deemed offensive beyond what in a normal dictionary, suggested they wait for parental controls. The company didn't want to wait so they edited it but didn't apply for a new lower rating and thus they got the 17+. I'm really not sure how that's not completely clear - it seems exceptionally straight forward to me.

As a business man, I can't possibly support this decision. So we'll just have to agree to disagree there. No point in trying to argue for semantics sakes.

Where there not any dictionary apps in the App Store prior to parental controls? I want to see what words Teh Schill™ considers "urban"

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 12:55 PM
As a business man, I can't possibly support this decision. So we'll just have to agree to disagree there. No point in trying to argue for semantics sakes.

Where there not any dictionary apps in the App Store prior to parental controls? I want to see what words Teh Schill™ considers "urban"

I just think, especially in today's society, the goal is be PC more than anything (oh the irony of Apple being PC, ha!) because negative news spreads like wild fire and takes a huge toll.

I'd guess they are talking about stuff like, idk, Cincinnati Bowtie, Rusty Trombone or Cleveland Steamer or things like that (urban dictionary...) (warning - it's naaassstay!! haha)

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 12:55 PM
I do of course believe in censorship designed to protect children from exploitation of any kind, and from being exposed to what any reasonable person would regard as potentially harmful material.

While I very much agree with the rest of your post, I must take issue with this statement. I do *not* believe in censorship "designed to protect children", or otherwise. What does that mean? It's a slippery slope.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in something called PARENTING. It's not *my* responsibility to make sure *your* child doesn't read a bad word or see a pornographic image. You decided to have a child, so you raise it and you censor content deemed offensive. Maybe you have to take time out of your busy day to care, to spend time with your child, to set parental controls, etc., but isn't that what parenting is about???

I'm so sick of people pumping out babies and then whining and crying about having to do the job of a parent, or worse, expecting government and now corporations to do the job for them. It's not my job to raise your kids and I'm certainly not going to support *ANY* kind of censorship, especially not the most bogus and egregious kind, that designed to "protect" children. Barf.

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 12:57 PM
I just think, especially in today's society, the goal is be PC more than anything (oh the irony of Apple being PC, ha!) because negative news spreads like wild fire and takes a huge toll.

I'd guess they are talking about stuff like, idk, Cincinnati Bowtie, Rusty Trombone or Cleveland Steamer or things like that (urban dictionary...) (warning - it's naaassstay!! haha)

If that's the case, then it's just pathetic. There are far worse things in life than seeing a few curse words.

That would be in Urban Dictionary. If they are in the wikitionary (which ninjawords uses), wikitionary should obviously remove them. Wikitionary (at least in my view) is supposed to be a free dictionary. Can't just go in there an create words and definitions, that's what UD is for.

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 12:58 PM
Sad but true. Every day Americans give up more freedoms to feel "safe." It's embarrassing. The Founding Fathers would be aghast. But we're so fat, lazy, and anesthetized by convenience and our cadre of gadgets, that we no longer care. We're more interested in watching the latest episode of some trashy reality show than we are in standing up for what's right.


I think the point you're missing is that the concerned parents are far more powerful and have a much greater impact than "the rest of us" because, as I mentioned, "the rest of us" are those of us who frequent forums like MR. I know we like to think we're a little microcosm of society but we're really not, not even close. In this case it's very much the concerns of the many outweigh the concerns of the few (with, I'd suggest, at least 80% of the population really not giving a crap what Apple does and doesn't allow in the app store). Basically, the people they are worried about offending are far more active and care much more than those on the other side and a a business Apple has to make the moves that will help them make more $ and pissing off a group of concerned parents means much more to them than having a bunch of Mac Fans b!tching about censorship.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:01 PM
While I very much agree with the rest of your post, I must take issue with this statement. I do *not* believe in censorship "designed to protect children", or otherwise. What does that mean? It's a slippery slope.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in something called PARENTING. It's not *my* responsibility to make sure *your* child doesn't read a bad word or see a pornographic image. You decided to have a child, so you raise it and you censor content deemed offensive. Maybe you have to take time out of your busy day to care, to spend time with your child, to set parental controls, etc., but isn't that what parenting is about???

I'm so sick of people pumping out babies and then whining and crying about having to do the job of a parent, or worse, expecting government and now corporations to do the job for them. It's not my job to raise your kids and I'm certainly not going to support *ANY* kind of censorship, especially not the most bogus and egregious kind, that designed to "protect" children. Barf.

Well - that's not really fair because the stuff available today wasn't even present as little as 10 years ago so there was nothing to censor. Back in the day there wasn't rampant internet pron (or the internet for that matter) or cell phones surfing the web for pron or even people playing video games where people went around yelling "...". Basically, it was almost infinitely easier to protect you children from these things 20 years ago because they simply didn't exist.

Now, I do agree with you that a lot of times people want other people to parent for them but keeping your kids from things (if you want to do that) is a much, much harder job than it was when we were growing up.

Sad but true. Every day Americans give up more freedoms to feel "safe." It's embarrassing. The Founding Fathers would be aghast. But we're so fat, lazy, and anesthetized by convenience and our cadre of gadgets, that we no longer care. We're more interested in watching the latest episode of some trashy reality show than we are in standing up for what's right.

Meh, I don't think it's embarrassing. If the "freedoms" we're giving up is being able to search the urban dictionary thinking it's a regular Merriam Webster style dictionary I really think that's a complete non issue and has absolutely nothing to do with freedoms (apple isn't stopping you from visiting urbandictionary.com - they are just saying they aren't going to sell and market something they deem questionable - every business has to make the same decisions (hence why you don't see sex toys at Target).

There are plenty of things the Founding Fathers would be aghast about but Apple's app store approval process isn't one of them. (Many of the things going on in Washington right now would but Apple, they are a business and the Founding Fathers supported capitalism).

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 01:12 PM
Not my problem. YOU decided to have kids. YOU raise them. If that means not buying a gadget or monitoring your kids' internet usage, so be it. That's YOUR job as a parent.

Just because technology has made it easier to see "naughty" pictures, that doesn't mean that my rights and freedoms should be curtailed because parents are lazy. Don't have kids. If you can't spend the necessary time with them, don't expect government (or big business) to step in and be the babysitter. It makes me sick. Why have kids in the first place???

I also find it absurd that people get so upset about their kid seeing a boob or reading a bad word, yet they don't care how many times their kid sees someone's head blown off on TV.

Dear parents, stop whining and DO YOUR JOB!

Well - that's not really fair because the stuff available today wasn't even present as little as 10 years ago so there was nothing to censor. Back in the day there wasn't rampant internet pron (or the internet for that matter) or cell phones surfing the web for pron or even people playing video games where people went around yelling "...". Basically, it was almost infinitely easier to protect you children from these things 20 years ago because they simply didn't exist.

Now, I do agree with you that a lot of times people want other people to parent for them but keeping your kids from things (if you want to do that) is a much, much harder job than it was when we were growing up.

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 01:16 PM
It's symptomatic of a bigger problem. I agree, this one issue isn't such a big deal. But then look at how Americans rolled over for the past eight years to mortgage all sorts of freedoms and privileges because of the terror boogeyman. I'm tired of how fearful we are as a country. Afraid of the boob, afraid of the bad word, afraid of the "other", afraid of the Muslim, afraid of the gay, afraid, afraid, afraid.


Meh, I don't think it's embarrassing. If the "freedoms" we're giving up is being able to search the urban dictionary thinking it's a regular Merriam Webster style dictionary I really think that's a complete non issue and has absolutely nothing to do with freedoms (apple isn't stopping you from visiting urbandictionary.com - they are just saying they aren't going to sell and market something they deem questionable - every business has to make the same decisions (hence why you don't see sex toys at Target).

There are plenty of things the Founding Fathers would be aghast about but Apple's app store approval process isn't one of them. (Many of the things going on in Washington right now would but Apple, they are a business and the Founding Fathers supported capitalism).

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:18 PM
Not my problem. YOU decided to have kids. YOU raise them. If that means not buying a gadget or monitoring your kids' internet usage, so be it. That's YOUR job as a parent.

Just because technology has made it easier to see "naughty" pictures, that doesn't mean that my rights and freedoms should be curtailed because parents are lazy. Don't have kids. If you can't spend the necessary time with them, don't expect government (or big business) to step in and be the babysitter. It makes me sick. Why have kids in the first place???

I also find it absurd that people get so upset about their kid seeing a boob or reading a bad word, yet they don't care how many times their kid sees someone's head blown off on TV.

Dear parents, stop whining and DO YOUR JOB!

Are you not over 17? If you are then nothing is being censored for you (also, please stop this "rights and freedoms" BS - nobody is stopping you from searching the web for any sick thing you could possible imagine.) Apple is making a BUSINESS DECISION, stop comparing them to the gov't. The gov't is what gives you rights and freedoms - not Apple. Furthermore, should the gov't mandate that Apple open up their App Store they are then taking away the rights and freedoms of a non-gov't entity. In conclusion - no ones rights or freedoms have, in any way whatsoever, been impacted by this.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:21 PM
It's symptomatic of a bigger problem. I agree, this one issue isn't such a big deal. But then look at how Americans rolled over for the past eight years to mortgage all sorts of freedoms and privileges because of the terror boogeyman. I'm tired of how fearful we are as a country. Afraid of the boob, afraid of the bad word, afraid of the "other", afraid of the Muslim, afraid of the gay, afraid, afraid, afraid.

You think the last 8 years were bad? It's only getting worse - now the gov't is in the business of owning private companies and then wants to make your health care decisions for you (and you thought dealing w/ an HMO is a pain in the @ss) all while leaving all those things you didn't like in place. Sadly, the rights and freedoms of Americans have continued to be limited and will continue to be for, again sadly, the foreseeable future :(

EDIT: As for the "afraid of gays" part - that's actually the people legislating to the gov't, not the other way around so it doesn't really belong in the argument.

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 01:25 PM
It's not BS. You can kid yourself all you want, but we're slowly chipping away at our rights and freedoms, allowing ourselves to be monitored, not holding flagrant violators of the law responsible because they happen to be our former Idiot in Chief, etc.

I don't want the FCC to open up the App Store and I agree 100% that it's Apple's right to set whatever policies it deems appropriate. I read Schiller's response and it's encouraging. What's missing from the App Store approval process is TRANSPARENCY. Apple needs clear rules and guidelines. Pulling apps and denying access to the store again and again without a clear definition of the problem makes Apple look bad. Period.


Are you not over 17? If you are then nothing is being censored for you (also, please stop this "rights and freedoms" BS - nobody is stopping you from searching the web for any sick thing you could possible imagine.) Apple is making a BUSINESS DECISION, stop comparing them to the gov't. The gov't is what gives you rights and freedoms - not Apple. Furthermore, should the gov't mandate that Apple open up their App Store they are then taking away the rights and freedoms of a non-gov't entity. In conclusion - no ones rights or freedoms have, in any way whatsoever, been impacted by this.

robbyx
Aug 6, 2009, 01:32 PM
Well, at least 50+ million Americans will HAVE health insurance. And I don't think this government would be bailing everyone out if the last one hadn't run the entire country into the ground! But let's not hold anyone responsible, right? After all, it's the New American Way! Do whatever, apologize, get away with it.

But you're correct. Our rights and freedoms will continue to be limited, regardless of who is in office. Why? Because we're probably the most fearful country on Earth. So we don't care how many of our rights and freedoms we give away to success in our fool's errand of feeling "safe."

And the "gays" part does belong in the argument. More fear and FUD from our elected officials and the public too. No different from the irrational fear of Muslims, seeing a boob on TV, etc.


You think the last 8 years were bad? It's only getting worse - now the gov't is in the business of owning private companies and then wants to make your health care decisions for you (and you thought dealing w/ an HMO is a pain in the @ss) all while leaving all those things you didn't like in place. Sadly, the rights and freedoms of Americans have continued to be limited and will continue to be for, again sadly, the foreseeable future :(

EDIT: As for the "afraid of gays" part - that's actually the people legislating to the gov't, not the other way around so it doesn't really belong in the argument.

Blue Fox
Aug 6, 2009, 01:32 PM
I find it hilarious that everyone on here is peeved about "freedoms" and "censoring" material.

This is APPLE's App Store.....they can do with it as they please. Don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that. Stop complaining.


.......and how did this thread turn into a Healthcare/Freedom/Government Intervention thread???

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:33 PM
It's not BS. You can kid yourself all you want, but we're slowly chipping away at our rights and freedoms, allowing ourselves to be monitored, not holding flagrant violators of the law responsible because they happen to be our former Idiot in Chief, etc.

I don't want the FCC to open up the App Store and I agree 100% that it's Apple's right to set whatever policies it deems appropriate. I read Schiller's response and it's encouraging. What's missing from the App Store approval process is TRANSPARENCY. Apple needs clear rules and guidelines. Pulling apps and denying access to the store again and again without a clear definition of the problem makes Apple look bad. Period.

Well maybe we are but what I'm saying is this decision by Apple has nothing to do with that so it's disingenuous to tie the two together. The gov't and the gov't alone has the ability to restrict rights and freedoms - not a corporation like Apple. I agree with you there are a lot of things that are now restricted as a result of some goings on in DC but DC and Apple are two separate entities.

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:39 PM
Well, at least 50+ million Americans will HAVE health insurance. And I don't think this government would be bailing everyone out if the last one hadn't run the entire country into the ground! But let's not hold anyone responsible, right? After all, it's the New American Way! Do whatever, apologize, get away with it.

But you're correct. Our rights and freedoms will continue to be limited, regardless of who is in office. Why? Because we're probably the most fearful country on Earth. So we don't care how many of our rights and freedoms we give away to success in our fool's errand of feeling "safe."

And the "gays" part does belong in the argument. More fear and FUD from our elected officials and the public too. No different from the irrational fear of Muslims, seeing a boob on TV, etc.

You were arguing about top down legislation that is restricting rights where as the "gays" part is legislation from the ground up. Sure, it's still fear but it's not DC legislating to the people - it's the other way around (oddly that's how democracy is supposed to work - it's a shame we can't get it to work for things that actually matter).

Also, I can't believe you're so foolish to blame the entire collapse on the president - congress is as much a part of that as he is and lest we not forget the president and congress did not share a party for the part when the entire thing went to *****.

one more aside - if you think the mortgage thing was because of bush I think you should look back at the policies enacted by Clinton - mainly the one about making sure that poor people who can't afford houses should qualify for mortgages if they happen to be a minority (that combined with deregulation drove it into the ground, neither one would have killed it but the combination of the two did, if you think about it it HAD to...)

Anyway - yay, yay, Apple isn't quite as evil as the initial article leads you to believe but people still want to see "hot carl" in their iPhone dictionaries! haha

bigmc6000
Aug 6, 2009, 01:40 PM
I find it hilarious that everyone on here is peeved about "freedoms" and "censoring" material.

This is APPLE's App Store.....they can do with it as they please. Don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that. Stop complaining.


.......and how did this thread turn into a Healthcare/Freedom/Government Intervention thread???

If you use the word censor just once it sets off a firestorm - at least in tech blogs it seems. I think part of that is still a defense for the torrent sites because the more censorship their is I think people are worried that at some stage they won't be able to download Transformers for free anymore...

Teh Don Ditty
Aug 6, 2009, 01:41 PM
This thread is about ninjawords, Apple, Phil Schiller and the FTC.

This is not about healthcare or DC politics or any of that crap.

Stick to the topic people.

Darkroom
Aug 6, 2009, 04:20 PM
In fact I think more companies need to act more responsible in this day and age. Maybe we all should get back to our moral beliefs.

please don't assume "we" all have the same moral beliefs, because i can assure you (based on your response to this thread) that we certainly do not.

G58
Aug 6, 2009, 11:53 PM
If that's true, what is it that makes the iPhone a special case? As we know, the very same allegedly offensive words are to be found as suggestions in Apple's own Dictionary app on all Macs.

Not sure I've missed any points on this one...

Quite frankly I don't think you're right here. I'm coming round to the view the it's an internal legal issue, and a case of one rule for all, ie: no swearing in games etc.


I think the point you're missing is that the concerned parents are far more powerful and have a much greater impact than "the rest of us" because, as I mentioned, "the rest of us" are those of us who frequent forums like MR. I know we like to think we're a little microcosm of society but we're really not, not even close. In this case it's very much the concerns of the many outweigh the concerns of the few (with, I'd suggest, at least 80% of the population really not giving a crap what Apple does and doesn't allow in the app store). Basically, the people they are worried about offending are far more active and care much more than those on the other side and a a business Apple has to make the moves that will help them make more $ and pissing off a group of concerned parents means much more to them than having a bunch of Mac Fans b!tching about censorship.

G58
Aug 7, 2009, 12:11 AM
Well, you were kind enough to quote me, but did you read what I meant?

I said: "I do of course believe in censorship designed to protect children from exploitation of any kind, and from being exposed to what any reasonable person would regard as potentially harmful material."

The censorship I'm referring to is the extreme stuff that we all hopefully want to see an end to. Without a level of censorship, it would be a hell of a lot easier for sick SOBs to exploit kids on the net. It's surely bad enough already.

Maybe other legislation and control of access options play a greater role, but exploitative images of children should never be tolerated imo. That's what I meant.

An example of what a child might accidentally see on the net, that may not be considered harmful, might be a still of a nude scene from a regular movie. But a full on gynaecological perspective, multi penetration type of porn site should be clearly identified as such, to make it easier for parents to do as you suggest - set boundaries and access rights. But how many parents are smarter than their kids? They can just as easily set up their own accounts and guidelines on the family computer.

It's an issue. But I still maintain that the presence of the F word and the C word and the M-F word in an iPhone dictionary app is a complete non-issue in the real world.

It could just be that the approval department has been so busy, they just applied the rule in this stupid way because they were told to apply the rule on all apps. We may yet see it reversed.



While I very much agree with the rest of your post, I must take issue with this statement. I do *not* believe in censorship "designed to protect children", or otherwise. What does that mean? It's a slippery slope.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in something called PARENTING. It's not *my* responsibility to make sure *your* child doesn't read a bad word or see a pornographic image. You decided to have a child, so you raise it and you censor content deemed offensive. Maybe you have to take time out of your busy day to care, to spend time with your child, to set parental controls, etc., but isn't that what parenting is about???

I'm so sick of people pumping out babies and then whining and crying about having to do the job of a parent, or worse, expecting government and now corporations to do the job for them. It's not my job to raise your kids and I'm certainly not going to support *ANY* kind of censorship, especially not the most bogus and egregious kind, that designed to "protect" children. Barf.