Apple Adds 'Explicit' Category for New App Store Submissions

[guzhogi]

How is that Apple's problem or my problem or anyone's problem but your technologically challenged aunt? You say it's accidental but all I see is blatant negligence on the part of your aunt for not locking down the computer with filtering software or at least checking the site on her own before taking the kids there. If she doesn't know how computers work or what's on the Internet then she should either take a class herself or stop teaching concepts she scarcely understands herself. If parents and teachers want more customized control options for Safari I'm all for it, but when they try to control what other adults can install on their own phones it's time for them to chill out and stop trying to turn the whole world into Disney World.

With stuff like this where it's just a difference between a .com and .gov, it's easy for some people to mess up. How often do you go to .com sites versus .gov?

Besides, she's not in control of the filter. Her district's techs handle what goes through. Plus, there's no perfect filter. You either let bad stuff through, or block legitimate sites. What if a kid wanted to do research on recipes that have chicken breasts in them or something about breast cancer? I've heard of filters that block those, yet allow websites that have some weird, obscure phrase about sex or even a innocent phrase like whitehouse.com, through. There's no perfect, easy way to block web sites. Considering there are 2^32 or more than 4 billion IPv4 addresses out there, while not all have websites, a lot do & that's a lot of websites you have to go through.

I have never been able to understand how people can be offended by statements not directly targeted at them or at least statements indirectly about them, like racial slurs and the like.

It might not be directed at them, but maybe about someone some group he/she cares about. Plus, some might still just find it rude. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind it if someone said to you "You know, all people of such & such a race look the same to me & are retarded" wouldn't offend you?

 

[cmaier]

Are you saying that you wouldn't mind it if someone said to you "You know, all people of such & such a race look the same to me & are retarded" wouldn't offend you?

Why is it people are offended by mere words? Wouldn't it be far more rational to say to one's self "I know that statement isn't true. The speaker is a moron."

 

[guzhogi]

Why is it people are offended by mere words? Wouldn't it be far more rational to say to one's self "I know that statement isn't true. The speaker is a moron."

Honestly, I have no idea, very good point.

And with regards to my last point about how simple words or phrases can be misconstrued into something else, I've attached a picture.

 

[zync]

It might not be directed at them, but maybe about someone some group he/she cares about. Plus, some might still just find it rude. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind it if someone said to you "You know, all people of such & such a race look the same to me & are retarded" wouldn't offend you?

Mind and offend are two different things. If someone said "all Chinese people look alike" I wouldn't be offended because I'm not Chinese but that doesn't mean that I agree or that I don't think they're an *******.

If a woman says that "all men are pigs" I don't defend myself, I just think she knows a stupid man. Now if she says "all men are pigs" referring to me I would be offended, mote than that I'd just be angry. It really takes a good direct slandering insult with intent to offend me. The dictionary disagrees but I consider a personal slanderous affront to be offending and that's about it.

Edit: cmaier beat me to it and more elegantly put it. Just refer to what he said. Words don't bother me.

 

[madmax_2069]

Just what the App Store needs.... another layer of confusion.

Really now, i didn't know that by adding a more easier way to find (or not find) something made it more confusing. This should tidy up some of the clutter that was listed before. i havent used iTunes in a while but do they have a useless app selection, because this would take care of the rest that was really useless, It would be less clutter one would have to look through to find what they wanted without showing that stuff.

 

[kallisti]

Why is it people are offended by mere words? Wouldn't it be far more rational to say to one's self "I know that statement isn't true. The speaker is a moron."

As an attorney, are you really going to downplay the importance of words?

 

[guzhogi]

Mind and offend are two different things. If someone said "all Chinese people look alike" I wouldn't be offended because I'm not Chinese but that doesn't mean that I agree or that I don't think they're an *******.

If a woman says that "all men are pigs" I don't defend myself, I just think she knows a stupid man. Now if she says "all men are pigs" referring to me I would be offended, mote than that I'd just be angry. It really takes a good direct slandering insult with intent to offend me. The dictionary disagrees but I consider a personal slanderous affront to be offending and that's about it.

I feel the same way: I look at the context the person puts it in. If a woman says "All men are pigs" in an off the cuff way, I would think maybe she found out her boyfriend cheated on her. In that case, I wouldn't mind & I'd understand. If a woman doesn't like porn because she feels it objectifies women, she doesn't have to pose nude. She may feel it objectifies ALL women, just not the women in the porno. I can definitely understand because porn does objectify women to some extent (some porn more than others). I feel there are different levels of objection, not just you're objected to something or not.

Plus, if someone made a more bigoted thing, I'd feel a little offended. I may be a white straight male, but I don't like bigotry, regardless of what group of people they're bigoted against.

 

[zync]

Plus, if someone made a more bigoted thing, I'd feel a little offended. I may be a white straight male, but I don't like bigotry, regardless of what group of people they're bigoted against.

I'm a mix of almost everything so if someone says something about some race, they've pretty much pegged me anyway, lol. Perhaps the real difference is that a lot of people take statements personally and I don't unless they're directed at my person.

 

[guzhogi]

I'm a mix of almost everything so if someone says something about some race, they've pretty much pegged me anyway, lol. Perhaps the real difference is that a lot of people take statements personally and I don't unless they're directed at my person.

I'm a pretty easy going guy, I don't see much (if any bigotry) where I live & work so I've been lucky. Though I get along pretty well with pretty much everyone I meet, when I hate someone, I HATE them with a vengeance. And when I hate someone, it's for (what I feel) are good reasons, not something trivial like not liking their haircut. Something of substance like being a bigot.

I also feel that everyone can be used for something, even if it's to set a bad example for everyone else.

 

[zync]

I'm similar. Generally when I see bigotry it's on the internet, go figure.

 

[cmaier]

As an attorney, are you really going to downplay the importance of words?

Yes. I am far more concerned with actions. It is true that sometimes speech is a verbal action (for example, the exchange of certain words can result in a binding contract). But, in the OP's example - someone spouting racial slurs - how can I be offended by mere words absent harmful actions? (I am a member of an oft-slurred minority, btw, so I'm not speaking in the hypothetical).

When someone says something nasty about you or your race/gender/group, there are two possibilities. He's right - then why should I be offended? He's wrong - then he's either simply misinformed, uneducated, or a jackass - but what's it to me - wouldn't I be beat off ignoring it? (absent direct nonverbal consequences like damage to my business, physical danger, etc. of course).

 

[Dawgson]

Neither guns, nor being in our presence will cause me and my wife to be grand-parents, suffer through our children doing drugs, or wringing our hands in worry wondering where and what our kids are up to.

Do you home school?

 

[dejo]

Do you home school?

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9333502&#post9333502

 

[Takuta-Nui]

Much better IMO.

 

[MarkCollette]

I am not advocating doing everything like they were in the old days. For all the faults you mention, parents who use methods like mine do not have to deal with sexting, teenage VD or pregnancy, or substance abuse.

I think the question is whether you've solved those problems, or merely deferred them to a later point. Although I would agree that older children would have better tools to address those issues than younger tools, so a bit of deferment is a good idea. The problem arises when the blackout fails, then it can fail completely. For example, younger children might appear to be too young for any talk of sexuality. But then because they have no tools, they are more vulnerable to victimisation.

 

[Toneaphone]

No Warning...Ouch :-(

The boob apps were pretty much all over the place, and I think that made people angry. A few pasty app in Lifestyle, some boob apps in Entertainment, a couple swimsuit app in Utilities, and some even made the top 50. I think these apps will be done away with for good. Too bad they gave no warning to the developers that actually published these apps.

 

[justinfreid]

Likely not. Some developers might not want their apps in said place and would rather just drop it. By making them make the changes they can also make that decision. That list that Mr Wobble got was likely the rules of what must be tagged Explicit (hey he had a vested interest in tweaking the facts since he was the one scorned)

Apple could simply ask developers whether they want their apps moved to the explicit category or want them removed entirely to deal with your hypothetical issue.