5 ms·

Great. First they were under fire for censoring apps, now they're taking heat for not censoring apps.

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
Yep. Goes with the territory. If you assume the role of gatekeeper, everyone, even people who don't like you acting as gatekeeper, can legitimately criticize you for the decisions you make about what does and doesn't go through the gate.
- nickbp 16y ago
  And everybody will have conflicting (even inconsistent) opinions about those decisions.
tallanvor 16y ago
And understandably so. Apple claims that their approval process is supposed to keep out low quality apps and objectionable content, to the extent that they've rejected applications that simply display content easily reachable using their own browser. Now they've approved an application that is clearly offensive to many people - and one that makes claims to do something that medical and psychological experts agree can't be done.
- gte910h 16y ago
  I'm thinking this is a highly political issue I'd rather not see Apple wade in on. I value freedom of expression over any particular political party or political/religious belief (including this particular inanity). Do I think fake ass religiously oriented programs don't work should be published? No. Do I think it's apple's role to choose whether to publish them? No, I do not. Objectionable content is about keeping the store safe for kids. Honestly, many parents would consider things around gay dating (http://www.grindr.com http://www.grindr.com) objectionable. Definitely enough people do to qualify for "many people" to be an apt description. Should apple remove that app? Oh look, now that it's an app you agree with, you don't want them to censor it. Freedom of Expression > Pretty much everything else.
  - Dylanlacey 16y ago
    Sorry, but claiming to reject "Objectionable" material that they classify themselves opened them up to a "political" issue. While I find this app sad, I don't have any issue with it being there... Except when compared to some of the apps that have been rejected.

Yep. Goes with the territory. If you assume the role of gatekeeper, everyone, even people who don't like you acting as gatekeeper, can legitimately criticize you for the decisions you make about what does and doesn't go through the gate.

nickbp 16y ago
And everybody will have conflicting (even inconsistent) opinions about those decisions.

tallanvor 16y ago

And understandably so. Apple claims that their approval process is supposed to keep out low quality apps and objectionable content, to the extent that they've rejected applications that simply display content easily reachable using their own browser. Now they've approved an application that is clearly offensive to many people - and one that makes claims to do something that medical and psychological experts agree can't be done.

gte910h 16y ago
I'm thinking this is a highly political issue I'd rather not see Apple wade in on. I value freedom of expression over any particular political party or political/religious belief (including this particular inanity). Do I think fake ass religiously oriented programs don't work should be published? No. Do I think it's apple's role to choose whether to publish them? No, I do not. Objectionable content is about keeping the store safe for kids. Honestly, many parents would consider things around gay dating (http://www.grindr.com http://www.grindr.com) objectionable. Definitely enough people do to qualify for "many people" to be an apt description. Should apple remove that app? Oh look, now that it's an app you agree with, you don't want them to censor it. Freedom of Expression > Pretty much everything else.
- Dylanlacey 16y ago
  Sorry, but claiming to reject "Objectionable" material that they classify themselves opened them up to a "political" issue. While I find this app sad, I don't have any issue with it being there... Except when compared to some of the apps that have been rejected.