4 ms·
That makes no sense, "offensive" is an arbitrary standard anyway. By definition you're being selective about it. I guess in this case Apple's standard is that
by henrikschroder 16y ago
That makes no sense, "offensive" is an arbitrary standard anyway. By definition you're being selective about it.
I guess in this case Apple's standard is that they remove apps that are offensive to their shareholders and customers.
- bad_user 16y agoThe term is subjective, yes, but an app that promises a Gay Cure is by definition offensive, no matter what definition of "offensive" you choose -- it's also medically dangerous, since gayness is not really a disease. So if Apple pretends that it's doing this approval for the betterment of the App Store, like a Shepard blocking out impure apps from its garden, then they'd better make sure Gay Cure apps are out, otherwise they are hypocrites.
- officemonkey 16y agoSmoking is medically dangerous. Should Apple ban iSmokeit and other apps that facilitate smoking?
- bad_user 16y agoSmokers also know that smoking is dangerous. Banning apps like iSmokeit would be like imposing your morality on the rest of the world, even if there are well-behaved smokers out there that only smoke in their own private space. On the other hand apps that help you quit smoking are OK, since smoking IS bad for you in the long-run and dependency on smoking IS a treatable vice.
- officemonkey 16y agoSo, in other words, since everyone knows that smoking is bad for you, it's okay for pro-smoking apps to exist. I understand why people were upset by the Gay-cure app, as people would be angry about an anti-vaccine app, or a pro-Nazi app. I am not in favor of Apple's app store policy precisely because it encourages nanny-state morality on the flimsiest of moral grounds: profitability. It reminds me of John Maynard Keynes' attributed quote: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago> The term is subjective, yes, but an app that promises a Gay Cure is by definition offensive By your definition - it had thousands of downloads and the organisation that produced it has thousands of members who clearly do not find it offensive and that likely extends to tens or hundreds of thousands of evangelicals (if not millions). That's how subjective works.
- maurycy 16y agoOffended != offensive.
- lt 16y agoExtremely relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2164 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2164
- bad_user 16y agoI'm pretty sure there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in the world that still think Niggers are an inferior race or that Jews are the rats that will bring this world to annihilation or that believe Xenu, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", really exists and he's going to be back one day. Any treatment / cure that is advertised as such (without BIG BOLD letters of warning) should be approved or banned by relevant organizations -- there's precedent for it, like Scientology's E-meters being required to be marked as a "religious device". By my definition "offensive" is a notion or device that's used to spread hate or shame versus other people's condition, people which are really harmless for society as a whole -- since gayness is not really a disease.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoDon't be me wrong, I agree with your views - these are things I find offensive too, I'm just picking up the idea that something can be subjective and by definition offensive. That's contradictory - if it's offensive by definition, there is no room for interpretation by the subject and therefore it can not be subjective.