Apple Censors 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone Application

[iphones4evry1]

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]

Looks like a case of head up as5 syndrome...

 

[Cybbe]

Mail to Apple

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then leave

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^You seem to be missing the point.

THEY ARE CENSORING A DICTIONARY!

A DICTIONARY! A BOOK OF REFERENCE!

 

[bigmc6000]

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]

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]

^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]

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]

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]

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]

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.