Apple Censors 'Ninjawords Dictionary' iPhone Application

[dejo]

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]

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.

 

[sishaw]

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]

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]

From 'God Complex' to finding God?

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]

American morals

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 '*****' [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]

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]

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]

 

[bigmc6000]

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]

Phil Schiller responded to John Gruber over at Daring Fireball

Link

 

[bigmc6000]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.