4 ms·

No, just as Safari isn't removed because you can visit porn sites with it, but an app that was dedicated only to porn would be. Are you being intentionally obtu

No, just as Safari isn't removed because you can visit porn sites with it, but an app that was dedicated only to porn would be. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

vonmoltke 11y ago
Safari doesn't create the content its users view with the app; the New York Times does. They aren't the same thing.
- caskance 11y ago
  Most distinct entities aren't.
mikeash 11y ago
OK, what about one of the crime mapping apps? Random example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=... Should that be pulled too?
- caskance 11y ago
  No clue. You could report it and find out.
pjc50 11y ago
No, I'm arguing that there should be a clear boundary between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and trying to find out why a list of locations where people have been killed is objectionable to anyone. What about the list of V2 target sites from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 ? Would that be banned?
- caskance 11y ago
  The more likely case is that nobody will know or care about it and it will remain unnoticed forever.
cwyers 11y ago
In what sense is reporting on the government's foreign policy the same as pornography?
- caskance 11y ago
  In the sense that they're both considered obscene by Apple.
  - chipotle_coyote 11y ago
    Serious question: so what? The case you seem to be making in your comments is that it's irrational for all of us to be looking askance at this definition of "obscenity," but it's always been subjective, legally speaking. If we accept "controversial and potentially offensive" as obscene, that's a really broad definition, and I think it's worth pushing back on.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Obscenity is always going to be subjective. When it comes to what Apple is willing to sell in their store, it is their idea of obscenity that applies. At this point, I think they have made their stance clear enough that both you and I understand what gets apps banned. I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status that prohibits them from exercising their own judgment in what apps they publish. If you actually want that, you should say so. Arguing that Apple should have to publish apps it finds obscene just because the apps don't match your own definition of obscenity IS irrational. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps not irrational. Let's say shitty.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status... Not just no, but "Hell no". What folks want from Apple is for their reviewers to behave like professionals. Professionals would provide a reasonably consistent, non-capricious application of the App Store rules. The current situation can be described roughly as: "Your app will be de-listed if some app reviewer got up on the wrong side of the bed. The reviewer will point to a randomly selected clause in the TOU as the justification for the removal. You will be unable to get your app back in the App Store unless you have a large amount of social clout, or another reviewer who really dislikes the first one decides to override their decision. There are no guarantees that this process will not recur an unlimited number of times in the future." This is not a good foundation on which to build a business relationship. Could you attempt to use all the apps that aren't pulled, and the $X,XXX raked in monthly by folks from App Store revenues as counterexamples? Yes. Do those things negate my point? No.

No, just as Safari isn't removed because you can visit porn sites with it, but an app that was dedicated only to porn would be. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

vonmoltke 11y ago

Safari doesn't create the content its users view with the app; the New York Times does. They aren't the same thing.

caskance 11y ago
Most distinct entities aren't.

mikeash 11y ago

OK, what about one of the crime mapping apps? Random example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crimemapping/id452856454?mt=... Should that be pulled too?

caskance 11y ago
No clue. You could report it and find out.

pjc50 11y ago

No, I'm arguing that there should be a clear boundary between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and trying to find out why a list of locations where people have been killed is objectionable to anyone. What about the list of V2 target sites from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10302576 ? Would that be banned?

caskance 11y ago
The more likely case is that nobody will know or care about it and it will remain unnoticed forever.

cwyers 11y ago

In what sense is reporting on the government's foreign policy the same as pornography?

caskance 11y ago
In the sense that they're both considered obscene by Apple.
- chipotle_coyote 11y ago
  Serious question: so what? The case you seem to be making in your comments is that it's irrational for all of us to be looking askance at this definition of "obscenity," but it's always been subjective, legally speaking. If we accept "controversial and potentially offensive" as obscene, that's a really broad definition, and I think it's worth pushing back on.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Obscenity is always going to be subjective. When it comes to what Apple is willing to sell in their store, it is their idea of obscenity that applies. At this point, I think they have made their stance clear enough that both you and I understand what gets apps banned. I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status that prohibits them from exercising their own judgment in what apps they publish. If you actually want that, you should say so. Arguing that Apple should have to publish apps it finds obscene just because the apps don't match your own definition of obscenity IS irrational. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps not irrational. Let's say shitty.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > I suspect what you and the others really want is for Apple to be bound by some kind of common carrier status... Not just no, but "Hell no". What folks want from Apple is for their reviewers to behave like professionals. Professionals would provide a reasonably consistent, non-capricious application of the App Store rules. The current situation can be described roughly as: "Your app will be de-listed if some app reviewer got up on the wrong side of the bed. The reviewer will point to a randomly selected clause in the TOU as the justification for the removal. You will be unable to get your app back in the App Store unless you have a large amount of social clout, or another reviewer who really dislikes the first one decides to override their decision. There are no guarantees that this process will not recur an unlimited number of times in the future." This is not a good foundation on which to build a business relationship. Could you attempt to use all the apps that aren't pulled, and the $X,XXX raked in monthly by folks from App Store revenues as counterexamples? Yes. Do those things negate my point? No.