4 ms·

Evil might be a bit strong of a word for such a simple misunderstanding. The tendency to go for extremes in debate is well known, but it tends to destroy any a

by haseman 17y ago

Evil might be a bit strong of a word for such a simple misunderstanding. The tendency to go for extremes in debate is well known, but it tends to destroy any ability to talk about the problem. In reality, AT&T is probably calling some of the shots on Apple's censorship rules. In any-case, censorship of age-old sexual how-to books strikes me as silly, but certainly not evil.

umjames 17y ago
It makes you wonder why they don't mark applications with the explicit tag that they use for the rest of the iTunes Store. Then you could have parental controls that disallow explicit content (apps or otherwise) from being visible to certain users (your kids' iTunes accounts).
- calambrac 17y ago
  Parental controls are one of the big features of the next version of the iPhone OS.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    That might be the real underlying motivation here. The reviewers might be under instructions to disallow any app with the ability to download arbitrary content until the version with parental controls is released. Picking some bit of plausibly offensive content at random is just a pretense.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      If that's actually the case, then they should come out and say that, rather than apparently randomly fucking over developers who are depending on this platform to feed their family.
calambrac 17y ago
I disagree with you; to me, censorship is evil until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is very high. But I think that the Kama Sutra is kind of beside the point, here. It's just a data point indicating a larger 'evil' - that Apple as an organization has put a system into place where a developer can be completely screwed with no transparency into why. We're left assuming this particular case is just some over-zealous asshole reviewer, or an unfortunate quirk of some automated review software, or whatever, but we actually have no idea, and that's the real problem. Evil is asking people to invest a bunch of time developing for your platform and giving them no way of knowing if they're actually going to be allowed to sell their product, no real recourse when they're rejected, and no transparency into the process. Evil is making arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that directly affect a person's ability to make a living.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  There is no evidence of censorship as apple's policy. The evidence points to some faulty cogs in the machine and some lack of having a clear policy.
- haseman 17y ago
  In theory I agree with you. Censorship is not good. What I guess we disagreeing over is the 'level' of bad. Torture or murder is evil, censorship, in this case, is just silly and clearly a mistake. (As they've now reversed their stance) Even so, Censorship is a tool, it isn't inherently evil just as guns or knives aren't inherently evil. But they can easily be put to an 'evil' use. Apple's approval process isn't evil, it's just frustrating. Take it from someone who's dealt with MUCH worse from AT&T and Verizon.

by haseman 17y ago

umjames 17y ago

It makes you wonder why they don't mark applications with the explicit tag that they use for the rest of the iTunes Store. Then you could have parental controls that disallow explicit content (apps or otherwise) from being visible to certain users (your kids' iTunes accounts).

calambrac 17y ago
Parental controls are one of the big features of the next version of the iPhone OS.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  That might be the real underlying motivation here. The reviewers might be under instructions to disallow any app with the ability to download arbitrary content until the version with parental controls is released. Picking some bit of plausibly offensive content at random is just a pretense.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    If that's actually the case, then they should come out and say that, rather than apparently randomly fucking over developers who are depending on this platform to feed their family.

calambrac 17y ago

I disagree with you; to me, censorship is evil until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is very high. But I think that the Kama Sutra is kind of beside the point, here. It's just a data point indicating a larger 'evil' - that Apple as an organization has put a system into place where a developer can be completely screwed with no transparency into why. We're left assuming this particular case is just some over-zealous asshole reviewer, or an unfortunate quirk of some automated review software, or whatever, but we actually have no idea, and that's the real problem. Evil is asking people to invest a bunch of time developing for your platform and giving them no way of knowing if they're actually going to be allowed to sell their product, no real recourse when they're rejected, and no transparency into the process. Evil is making arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that directly affect a person's ability to make a living.

xenophanes 17y ago
There is no evidence of censorship as apple's policy. The evidence points to some faulty cogs in the machine and some lack of having a clear policy.
haseman 17y ago
In theory I agree with you. Censorship is not good. What I guess we disagreeing over is the 'level' of bad. Torture or murder is evil, censorship, in this case, is just silly and clearly a mistake. (As they've now reversed their stance) Even so, Censorship is a tool, it isn't inherently evil just as guns or knives aren't inherently evil. But they can easily be put to an 'evil' use. Apple's approval process isn't evil, it's just frustrating. Take it from someone who's dealt with MUCH worse from AT&T and Verizon.