6 ms·

Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

157 points by Oompa 17y ago

timdorr 17y ago
This is the part I'm most worried about: As is clear from the screenshots, Qingwen doesn’t bombard you with words like “cock” and “penis” the moment you start it up. No, the Apple employee who took those screenshots specifically searched for those words. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the same thing as opening a website that contains swear words (like the page you’re reading, for instance) on the iPhone. If they don’t want Qingwen on the iPhone because it can show you “objectionable material”, then why allow Safari, Mail, YouTube and pretty much any other app, which can easily show you all sorts of even more “objectionable material”? I don't like the idea that reviewers are doing their best to try and make my apps fail approval. That comes across to me as a developer that Apple doesn't want me to succeed. And based on how they have been treating developers lately, that definitely seems to be the case. At the very least, this shows that the execs at Apple at least know about the problem. I know it's hard to miss, but I honestly thought they could have not heard about these issues by now. It's that bad. The utter silence that their corporate culture encourages is creating a horrible situation for them and for us. They need to realize that the traditional ways of secrecy and black boxing that normally works for other areas of their business is not going to work here.
- tumult 17y ago
  "We’ve reviewed your submission and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time. The following criteria did not meet App Store guidelines: Application stopped responding after iPhone was thrown against concrete. Regards, iPhone Developer Program"
- Zev 17y ago
  I don't like the idea that reviewers are doing their best to try and make my apps fail approval. That comes across to me as a developer that Apple doesn't want me to succeed. Just to present an alternate viewpoint, where app reviewers manage to do good: That depends. If the reviewer was trying to make my app fail by crashing it — and managed to do so — I'd want to hear about it and have it fixed before I heard about it from the public.
- phil 17y ago
  Gruber is uncharacteristically imprecise in the paragraph you quote. If you look at the parental controls interface on your iPhone (Settings -> General -> Restrictions), it's obvious that Safari, Mail, YouTube, and so on can be individually restricted. There's also the more general option that allows restriction of third party apps based on rating. The goal of the parental controls is to secure the device against anything that goes beyond a given rated standard. That explains these decisions that seem silly, like requiring an adult rating because if you search for 'fuck' you get a definition, or because an app provides a webkit view of a totally innocuous wikipedia page. These are security holes that an enterprising 12 year old who wanted to circumvent the parental controls might be able to exploit. Yeah, you have to turn off Safari and YouTube and the rest to get a fully locked down phone, but you can do that. Doing so might be lousy parenting, but that's not at issue. The parental control feature is designed to allow a complete lockdown, that's what Apple claims it does, and the app review policy has to be strict, or it won't work.
  - roc 17y ago
    That it's possible isn't the relevant bit. The fact that you can lock down all third party browsers based on rating, but have to explicitly lock down Safari separately exposes the absurdity and inconsistency of this policy. If Apple 'rated' Safari 17+ and youtube something like 14+, and the parental controls were applied universally, their policy wouldn't be nearly so bad.
    - phil 17y ago
      Yeah, you get more granular control over the built-in apps. Why would it make the policy better or more consistent if that ability were taken away?
      - roc 17y ago
        Because what you call 'granularity' is intentional inconsistency. Apple is making a fairly strict policy decision (open internet == 17+). But with separated parental controls for safari and youtube, they're are exempting themselves from the downsides of this policy (equivocating Safari with apps that actually do contain vulgar, suggestive and/or violent content). If they were at least willing to eat their own dog food, one could argue that Apple doesn't feel their policy is too strict. That they don't demonstrates that even they can see that the classification system doesn't quite work.
brg 17y ago
How can a person on one hand say "Apple did not reject this developer’s application for including references to common swear words" and on that other hand know that the app was being banned because they wanted a 17+ rating due to the availability, to quote the article, of the words "shit, fuck, and cunt, specifically." Are not the former common swear words, and is not the restriction of material from wider audiences censorship?
- gojomo 17y ago
  Yes. Gruber touts Schiller's response as 'thoughtful', but what Schiller says is inconsistent with Gruber's own excerpted reporting so far. Bottom-line: Dictionary.com's app contains 'fuck', was released in April (before parental controls), and now has an "age 4+" rating. NinjaWords was given 'fuck' as one of several examples of problem vulgar terms in screenshots and told to resubmit and/or wait for parental controls that would put them in the "17+" category. At the very least, Apple's prior guidance to NinjaWords was confusing and incomplete, if it did not clearly state that 'fuck' was fine and the other slang was the problem. Schiller (at least as Gruber has excerpted) doesn't address this failing at all.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Gruber consistently sides with Apple. He is, in essence, a fanboy. There are exceptions, and he's not a moron, so when there's community uproar and obvious stupidity he will say so. But his reporting is heavily pro-apple overall.
    - greendestiny 17y ago
      The thing I really hate is as an obviously intelligent guy with the influence to prompt a reply from an Apple exec his response is so... pathetic. That was not an encouraging and appropriate response from Apple, it was bullshit.
jcdreads 17y ago
I feel cautious optimism at this sign that the top folks at Apple realize that the app store approval process is a mess, and is perceived as such.
ihumanable 17y ago
The problem that I see is that Apple has no business being in the censorship or rating business period. Sure there are "business reasons" to perform these roles, but they are antithetical to a free society. The free market answer would be, if you don't like it don't buy an iPhone. That's great, but as technology marches forward there can only be a finite number of companies with the skills and resources to create smart phones, Apple being one of the nicest offerings. This concern will probably never effect enough consumers for this to ever hurt Apple's bottom line, and so they will never feel a free market pressure to change their behavior. A sort of net neutrality type of guarantee must be struck here, market forces will not prevail because this simply isn't an issue enough people care about. Rights are being infringed however and that must be addressed.
- cardinal23 17y ago
  I don't think that a rating system is antithetical to a free society. It is reasonable for consumers to want to know if there is material they would consider objectionable in a product, and it is reasonable for businesses to provide this information. A problem that Apple does have is that they appear to be applying standards for what might be considered objectionable in inconsistent ways.
- jrockway 17y ago
  The free market answer would be, if you don't like it don't buy an iPhone. That's great, but as technology marches forward there can only be a finite number of companies with the skills and resources to create smart phones, Apple being one of the nicest offerings. The key here is "one of the nicest". Is it nice if they use your money to control what people can and can't think? And anyway, there is Android, which is just as nice as the iPhone. I really don't see any major differences between the iPhone and Android, except that Android has the notification drawer and the iPhone shows notifications on the app icon. They both have fine apps available in the same areas, with Android leaning towards more useful apps, like IRC in the background. The basic functionality is the same (except I can use Google Voice for my calls), the browser is the same codebase, etc., etc. So anyone that says they "have to have" an iPhone is probably wrong; Android will get them everything the iPhone has, minus any Apple evilness. (HTC makes nice phones.)
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
It's nice that Schiller took the time to respond, but his letter doesn't make them look any better. They're still acting like useless self-appointed meddling busybodies with rigor mortis of the anal sphincter. I can accept them setting standards for hardware and software quality, but when they start imposing their standards on the flow of information, services (Google Voice) and ideas, they've lost me forever.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  You won't be missed. There are far more potential customers who care about "protecting" their children from various kinds of content. They constitute a market that Apple wants to access, and the way to do that is to provide mechanisms for filtering information on their behalf. If you're fundamentally opposed to doing business with companies that restrict the flow of information in order to access wider markets, you're going to have to stop using (among other things) Google, which censors itself in China. Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
  - GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
    Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for, nor does it prevent me from dealing with any third parties that I want to do business with. I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor. Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for Google's core business revolves around interposing itself between you and the information you're looking for. Google Image search excludes certain content from by default. Gmail filters spam by default. YouTube forbids many kinds of content. They do these things because people want these things. If they filtered information that people did want to access, they would be more likely to call it censorship instead of a useful service. I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor. Utterly untrue. Google is absolutely not forced to do business in China (or any other country that they alter their results on behalf of). They choose to censor themselves in order to access that market. (In crystal clear terms: Google censors itself on behalf of government in exchange for money.) If you are morally opposed to doing business with companies that are complicit in content filtering, then you must be morally opposed to using Google. I contend that most people are not morally opposed to this -- they merely think they are. And further: that this is ok. But people would be better off admitting this than being selectively ignorant. Google choosing to filter it's results for "tiananmen square" is not less bad than Apple choosing not to sell dictionaries that contain the term "cumdumpster" in the store that it operates. And yet people in the U.S. are prefer to engage in moral outrage over the latter. This is fucked up. Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business. Apple is choosing to require content ratings in order to access the market of people who care about content ratings. There is no evidence anywhere that Apple's content restrictions are in place for any reason other than market pressure to conform to the same moderate standards that most of our culture does. (That is: saying they "delight" is a stretch). That you personally do not conform to those standards says nothing about whether Apple, a profit-seeking company, should do so. Also, I would point out that it is not your business being meddled with--Apple does not censor your content at all (and indeed, they did not censor Ninjawords' content). It is Apple's business. They operate a store and they choose what they are willing to sell in it.
ivankirigin 17y ago
They essentially said "ohh, we don't mind the 'swear' words, just the really bad ones" Fuck that. It is exactly the same thing, but the lexicon has evolved.
- jsz0 17y ago
  I agree with that but someone who has parental controls enabled may not. That's why the feature exists. The "dirty words in dictionaries" battle has already been fought in schools and libraries and it seems Apple is taking the same route. Some words are OK, some aren't. It's not as though an NC-17 rating on the App Store really causes any problems for a developer unlike a movie getting an NC-17 rating which is a big deal still.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    You know, I went to see Transformers last weekend, which is PG-13 and included a rich variety of swear words and sexual innuendo. The problem is not so much that Apple is censoring NinjaWords, as that Apple is penalizing them for engaging in censorship, while approving and/or offering (via Safari etc.) apps which allow access to the exact same 'offensive' information. This seems to me to be an unfair restraint of trade.
  - ivankirigin 17y ago
    School censoring and rating systems are both bullshit. They oppress minorities and creativity. A software platform has far less justification to follow a similar pattern. The idea that children shouldn't see swear words is leading to a categorical error. The debate is about how much, for which there is no right answer, instead of if at all. As a parent, let me put some authority behind it and say the parental control is the off switch. If parents aren't there to turn it off - guess what: your kids are already looking at donkey porn, and there is nothing you can do about it. The whole issue is such a farce, where Apple is really looking to give the impression that it cares and controls the situation, when it doesn't. They make a web browser that can easily search for porn. Is there effectively a difference between that and an app where you can search for a dry definition of a dirty word? There is a difference - the browser is far worse. And not restricted. And made by Apple itself.
calambrac 17y ago
A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive “urban slang” terms that you won’t find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. We're totally fine with established rich white vulgarity, but new poor black vulgarity? Come on now, that's just crossing the line.
- roc 17y ago
  Because urban dictionary is populated by poor minority kids in the city?
  - calambrac 17y ago
    Wait... what? Being prejudiced against 'urban slang' is okay because poor minority kids in the city obviously don't update online dictionaries?
    - roc 17y ago
      No. I'm saying 'urban slang' doesn't mean what you think it means. He's characterizing certain slang as 'urban slang' because what he's talking about comes predominantly from a site called urbandictionary, which has about as much in common with urban culture as amazon.com has in common with the rainforest.
      - calambrac 17y ago
        Yeah. Except that he specifically mentioned Wiktionary as the source, and even if UD was the dictionary in question: why do you think they decided to name it "Urban Dictionary"? I'm sure that it was just completely coincidental that they picked 'urban' for a site built around defining slang terms.
        stepherm 17y ago
        Why does "Urban" necessarily imply "poor minority"? In most urban areas there are plenty of people that are not "poor minorities".
FiveFiftyOne 17y ago
The problem here is two fold. Apple conduct a deliberate search for swear words and slang, find it, flag it to the developer, and bounce the app. Technorati goes mad, sets the blogosphere alight with vitriol and damns Apple to hell, scant months after worshipping the self-same company. Alternatively, Apple fail to conduct said search, pass the app, and someone's rosy cheeked darling is caught scanning naughty words on their iPhone. Consumer advocacy groups and parental groups set the blogosphere alight with vitriol and damns Apple to hell. The honeymoon for Apple is over. They fought, they gained market and mindshare, and now they find themselves in a position where their former fans wish to slay them, and they're high profile enough to piss off the non-techs who buy their tech. Will be watching the Apple hate with interest in the coming months, same as with the Google hate. How we do loathe a victor.
- FiveFiftyOne 17y ago
  Retrospectively, this "content" flagging could apply to Mail, Safari, multimedia apps etc, so I guess my argument doesn't hold much water. I do maintain that the brouhaha and anger at Apple at the moment is interesting to behold. 'Scuse me while I return to panel beating FOSS from source onto my belligerent MacBook ;)
- umjames 17y ago
  So, who will you be cheering for in these Apple/Google vs. the people fights? Personally in the Apple vs. the people fight, I'll be cheering for the people who decide that they can do a better job policing themselves and their children than Apple can. I know it's not easy, but it is a parent's job to prepare their children to live in the world as it actually is. That includes the vulgar, violent, and hateful things in the world.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    "I know it's not easy, but it is a parent's job to prepare their children to live in the world as it actually is. That includes the vulgar, violent, and hateful things in the world." <sarcasm>That must mean children growing up in war zones and neighborhoods with a lot of crime must be the best "prepared" children, and parents should try to emulate such environments for their children's benefit.</sarcasm>
zach 17y ago
There will always be decisions which seem arbitrary and subjective in these situations because what's going on here is a very rough categorization with no room for nuance. And the very idea of age as a measure of appropriateness is pretty arbitrary to begin with, after all. Parental controls and ratings are a quagmire. And the more technological the product, the stickier it gets.
roc 17y ago
"Apple did not censor" You don't split hairs with a weasel-word defense if you're committed to any sort of change. Note the difference between this (we didn't do anything wrong. we'll do better in the future) and Bezo's letter (we fucked up. even if we were technically right, it was still wrong. we'll do better in the future) I can believe Bezos. Schiller? Not for a second.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Perhaps Apple should rebrand themselves as the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
colinprince 17y ago
Something still does not smell right about this. Phil Schiller: "Apple did not censor the content in this developer’s application and Apple did not reject this developer’s application for including references to common swear words." Phil Crosby: "They provided screenshots of the words 'shit' and 'fuck' showing up in our dictionary's search results." I'm sorry, this is a strong suggestion that without these types of words, the app would be approved. If you don't call that censorship, then call it "chilling effect", but the outcome is the same. And the other thing that doesn't ring true is the following oddity. Phil Schiller: "...anyone can easily see that Apple has previously approved other dictionary applications in the App Store that include all of the 'swear' words..." Then why did Apple reject the app for these swear words? (And why is 'swear' in inverted commas?) [edit: formatting]
mrshoe 17y ago
Well this effectively makes the parental controls useless. I don't want my kids to watch porn on their phones, but I do want them to have dictionaries. It seems that Apple is treating parental controls as way to check a checkbox in a feature list, instead of as something that can actually be used.
gcheong 17y ago
I wish George Carlin was alive to see this: (NSFW esp if you work at apple) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM
voom 17y ago
You HN folks are full of it. http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sharkfish http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sharkfish I used what is marginally a "swear word" and was modded into oblivion and subsequently banned from HN for that infraction. Some of you hate being reminded you are hypocrites. I have another account I use where I game you guys and get points. So this one is throwaway as well.
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
"" That Schiller was willing to respond in such detail and length, on the record, is the first proof I’ve seen that Apple’s leadership is trying to make the course correction that many of us see as necessary for the long-term success of the platform. "" No, they're not. If they were even trying, they would have scrapped the approval process altogether. True, the approval process has resulted in many high quality applications, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not completely retarded. Also, funny to see John Gruber changing his stance on the issue in one day.
dan_the_welder 17y ago
Oh noes! "unfiltered internet access" is bad.
xiaoma 17y ago
The idea that teenagers under 17 need to be shielded from certain language is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they can handle it. I listened to NIN as a 14 year old, read "profane" Heinlein stories and watched numerous violent movies. I don't feel particularly corrupted by it.

157 points by Oompa 17y ago

This is the part I'm most worried about: As is clear from the screenshots, Qingwen doesn’t bombard you with words like “cock” and “penis” the moment you start it up. No, the Apple employee who took those screenshots specifically searched for those words. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the same thing as opening a website that contains swear words (like the page you’re reading, for instance) on the iPhone. If they don’t want Qingwen on the iPhone because it can show you “objectionable material”, then why allow Safari, Mail, YouTube and pretty much any other app, which can easily show you all sorts of even more “objectionable material”? I don't like the idea that reviewers are doing their best to try and make my apps fail approval. That comes across to me as a developer that Apple doesn't want me to succeed. And based on how they have been treating developers lately, that definitely seems to be the case. At the very least, this shows that the execs at Apple at least know about the problem. I know it's hard to miss, but I honestly thought they could have not heard about these issues by now. It's that bad. The utter silence that their corporate culture encourages is creating a horrible situation for them and for us. They need to realize that the traditional ways of secrecy and black boxing that normally works for other areas of their business is not going to work here.

tumult 17y ago
"We’ve reviewed your submission and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time. The following criteria did not meet App Store guidelines: Application stopped responding after iPhone was thrown against concrete. Regards, iPhone Developer Program"
Zev 17y ago
I don't like the idea that reviewers are doing their best to try and make my apps fail approval. That comes across to me as a developer that Apple doesn't want me to succeed. Just to present an alternate viewpoint, where app reviewers manage to do good: That depends. If the reviewer was trying to make my app fail by crashing it — and managed to do so — I'd want to hear about it and have it fixed before I heard about it from the public.
phil 17y ago
Gruber is uncharacteristically imprecise in the paragraph you quote. If you look at the parental controls interface on your iPhone (Settings -> General -> Restrictions), it's obvious that Safari, Mail, YouTube, and so on can be individually restricted. There's also the more general option that allows restriction of third party apps based on rating. The goal of the parental controls is to secure the device against anything that goes beyond a given rated standard. That explains these decisions that seem silly, like requiring an adult rating because if you search for 'fuck' you get a definition, or because an app provides a webkit view of a totally innocuous wikipedia page. These are security holes that an enterprising 12 year old who wanted to circumvent the parental controls might be able to exploit. Yeah, you have to turn off Safari and YouTube and the rest to get a fully locked down phone, but you can do that. Doing so might be lousy parenting, but that's not at issue. The parental control feature is designed to allow a complete lockdown, that's what Apple claims it does, and the app review policy has to be strict, or it won't work.
- roc 17y ago
  That it's possible isn't the relevant bit. The fact that you can lock down all third party browsers based on rating, but have to explicitly lock down Safari separately exposes the absurdity and inconsistency of this policy. If Apple 'rated' Safari 17+ and youtube something like 14+, and the parental controls were applied universally, their policy wouldn't be nearly so bad.
  - phil 17y ago
    Yeah, you get more granular control over the built-in apps. Why would it make the policy better or more consistent if that ability were taken away?
    - roc 17y ago
      Because what you call 'granularity' is intentional inconsistency. Apple is making a fairly strict policy decision (open internet == 17+). But with separated parental controls for safari and youtube, they're are exempting themselves from the downsides of this policy (equivocating Safari with apps that actually do contain vulgar, suggestive and/or violent content). If they were at least willing to eat their own dog food, one could argue that Apple doesn't feel their policy is too strict. That they don't demonstrates that even they can see that the classification system doesn't quite work.

brg 17y ago

How can a person on one hand say "Apple did not reject this developer’s application for including references to common swear words" and on that other hand know that the app was being banned because they wanted a 17+ rating due to the availability, to quote the article, of the words "shit, fuck, and cunt, specifically." Are not the former common swear words, and is not the restriction of material from wider audiences censorship?

gojomo 17y ago
Yes. Gruber touts Schiller's response as 'thoughtful', but what Schiller says is inconsistent with Gruber's own excerpted reporting so far. Bottom-line: Dictionary.com's app contains 'fuck', was released in April (before parental controls), and now has an "age 4+" rating. NinjaWords was given 'fuck' as one of several examples of problem vulgar terms in screenshots and told to resubmit and/or wait for parental controls that would put them in the "17+" category. At the very least, Apple's prior guidance to NinjaWords was confusing and incomplete, if it did not clearly state that 'fuck' was fine and the other slang was the problem. Schiller (at least as Gruber has excerpted) doesn't address this failing at all.
- boucher 17y ago
  Gruber consistently sides with Apple. He is, in essence, a fanboy. There are exceptions, and he's not a moron, so when there's community uproar and obvious stupidity he will say so. But his reporting is heavily pro-apple overall.
  - greendestiny 17y ago
    The thing I really hate is as an obviously intelligent guy with the influence to prompt a reply from an Apple exec his response is so... pathetic. That was not an encouraging and appropriate response from Apple, it was bullshit.

jcdreads 17y ago

I feel cautious optimism at this sign that the top folks at Apple realize that the app store approval process is a mess, and is perceived as such.

ihumanable 17y ago

The problem that I see is that Apple has no business being in the censorship or rating business period. Sure there are "business reasons" to perform these roles, but they are antithetical to a free society. The free market answer would be, if you don't like it don't buy an iPhone. That's great, but as technology marches forward there can only be a finite number of companies with the skills and resources to create smart phones, Apple being one of the nicest offerings. This concern will probably never effect enough consumers for this to ever hurt Apple's bottom line, and so they will never feel a free market pressure to change their behavior. A sort of net neutrality type of guarantee must be struck here, market forces will not prevail because this simply isn't an issue enough people care about. Rights are being infringed however and that must be addressed.

cardinal23 17y ago
I don't think that a rating system is antithetical to a free society. It is reasonable for consumers to want to know if there is material they would consider objectionable in a product, and it is reasonable for businesses to provide this information. A problem that Apple does have is that they appear to be applying standards for what might be considered objectionable in inconsistent ways.
jrockway 17y ago
The free market answer would be, if you don't like it don't buy an iPhone. That's great, but as technology marches forward there can only be a finite number of companies with the skills and resources to create smart phones, Apple being one of the nicest offerings. The key here is "one of the nicest". Is it nice if they use your money to control what people can and can't think? And anyway, there is Android, which is just as nice as the iPhone. I really don't see any major differences between the iPhone and Android, except that Android has the notification drawer and the iPhone shows notifications on the app icon. They both have fine apps available in the same areas, with Android leaning towards more useful apps, like IRC in the background. The basic functionality is the same (except I can use Google Voice for my calls), the browser is the same codebase, etc., etc. So anyone that says they "have to have" an iPhone is probably wrong; Android will get them everything the iPhone has, minus any Apple evilness. (HTC makes nice phones.)

GiraffeNecktie 17y ago

It's nice that Schiller took the time to respond, but his letter doesn't make them look any better. They're still acting like useless self-appointed meddling busybodies with rigor mortis of the anal sphincter. I can accept them setting standards for hardware and software quality, but when they start imposing their standards on the flow of information, services (Google Voice) and ideas, they've lost me forever.

GHFigs 17y ago
You won't be missed. There are far more potential customers who care about "protecting" their children from various kinds of content. They constitute a market that Apple wants to access, and the way to do that is to provide mechanisms for filtering information on their behalf. If you're fundamentally opposed to doing business with companies that restrict the flow of information in order to access wider markets, you're going to have to stop using (among other things) Google, which censors itself in China. Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
- GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
  Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for, nor does it prevent me from dealing with any third parties that I want to do business with. I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor. Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for Google's core business revolves around interposing itself between you and the information you're looking for. Google Image search excludes certain content from by default. Gmail filters spam by default. YouTube forbids many kinds of content. They do these things because people want these things. If they filtered information that people did want to access, they would be more likely to call it censorship instead of a useful service. I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor. Utterly untrue. Google is absolutely not forced to do business in China (or any other country that they alter their results on behalf of). They choose to censor themselves in order to access that market. (In crystal clear terms: Google censors itself on behalf of government in exchange for money.) If you are morally opposed to doing business with companies that are complicit in content filtering, then you must be morally opposed to using Google. I contend that most people are not morally opposed to this -- they merely think they are. And further: that this is ok. But people would be better off admitting this than being selectively ignorant. Google choosing to filter it's results for "tiananmen square" is not less bad than Apple choosing not to sell dictionaries that contain the term "cumdumpster" in the store that it operates. And yet people in the U.S. are prefer to engage in moral outrage over the latter. This is fucked up. Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business. Apple is choosing to require content ratings in order to access the market of people who care about content ratings. There is no evidence anywhere that Apple's content restrictions are in place for any reason other than market pressure to conform to the same moderate standards that most of our culture does. (That is: saying they "delight" is a stretch). That you personally do not conform to those standards says nothing about whether Apple, a profit-seeking company, should do so. Also, I would point out that it is not your business being meddled with--Apple does not censor your content at all (and indeed, they did not censor Ninjawords' content). It is Apple's business. They operate a store and they choose what they are willing to sell in it.

ivankirigin 17y ago

They essentially said "ohh, we don't mind the 'swear' words, just the really bad ones" Fuck that. It is exactly the same thing, but the lexicon has evolved.

jsz0 17y ago
I agree with that but someone who has parental controls enabled may not. That's why the feature exists. The "dirty words in dictionaries" battle has already been fought in schools and libraries and it seems Apple is taking the same route. Some words are OK, some aren't. It's not as though an NC-17 rating on the App Store really causes any problems for a developer unlike a movie getting an NC-17 rating which is a big deal still.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  You know, I went to see Transformers last weekend, which is PG-13 and included a rich variety of swear words and sexual innuendo. The problem is not so much that Apple is censoring NinjaWords, as that Apple is penalizing them for engaging in censorship, while approving and/or offering (via Safari etc.) apps which allow access to the exact same 'offensive' information. This seems to me to be an unfair restraint of trade.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  School censoring and rating systems are both bullshit. They oppress minorities and creativity. A software platform has far less justification to follow a similar pattern. The idea that children shouldn't see swear words is leading to a categorical error. The debate is about how much, for which there is no right answer, instead of if at all. As a parent, let me put some authority behind it and say the parental control is the off switch. If parents aren't there to turn it off - guess what: your kids are already looking at donkey porn, and there is nothing you can do about it. The whole issue is such a farce, where Apple is really looking to give the impression that it cares and controls the situation, when it doesn't. They make a web browser that can easily search for porn. Is there effectively a difference between that and an app where you can search for a dry definition of a dirty word? There is a difference - the browser is far worse. And not restricted. And made by Apple itself.

calambrac 17y ago

A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive “urban slang” terms that you won’t find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X. We're totally fine with established rich white vulgarity, but new poor black vulgarity? Come on now, that's just crossing the line.

roc 17y ago
Because urban dictionary is populated by poor minority kids in the city?
- calambrac 17y ago
  Wait... what? Being prejudiced against 'urban slang' is okay because poor minority kids in the city obviously don't update online dictionaries?
  - roc 17y ago
    No. I'm saying 'urban slang' doesn't mean what you think it means. He's characterizing certain slang as 'urban slang' because what he's talking about comes predominantly from a site called urbandictionary, which has about as much in common with urban culture as amazon.com has in common with the rainforest.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      Yeah. Except that he specifically mentioned Wiktionary as the source, and even if UD was the dictionary in question: why do you think they decided to name it "Urban Dictionary"? I'm sure that it was just completely coincidental that they picked 'urban' for a site built around defining slang terms.
      - stepherm 17y ago
        Why does "Urban" necessarily imply "poor minority"? In most urban areas there are plenty of people that are not "poor minorities".

FiveFiftyOne 17y ago

The problem here is two fold. Apple conduct a deliberate search for swear words and slang, find it, flag it to the developer, and bounce the app. Technorati goes mad, sets the blogosphere alight with vitriol and damns Apple to hell, scant months after worshipping the self-same company. Alternatively, Apple fail to conduct said search, pass the app, and someone's rosy cheeked darling is caught scanning naughty words on their iPhone. Consumer advocacy groups and parental groups set the blogosphere alight with vitriol and damns Apple to hell. The honeymoon for Apple is over. They fought, they gained market and mindshare, and now they find themselves in a position where their former fans wish to slay them, and they're high profile enough to piss off the non-techs who buy their tech. Will be watching the Apple hate with interest in the coming months, same as with the Google hate. How we do loathe a victor.

FiveFiftyOne 17y ago
Retrospectively, this "content" flagging could apply to Mail, Safari, multimedia apps etc, so I guess my argument doesn't hold much water. I do maintain that the brouhaha and anger at Apple at the moment is interesting to behold. 'Scuse me while I return to panel beating FOSS from source onto my belligerent MacBook ;)
umjames 17y ago
So, who will you be cheering for in these Apple/Google vs. the people fights? Personally in the Apple vs. the people fight, I'll be cheering for the people who decide that they can do a better job policing themselves and their children than Apple can. I know it's not easy, but it is a parent's job to prepare their children to live in the world as it actually is. That includes the vulgar, violent, and hateful things in the world.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "I know it's not easy, but it is a parent's job to prepare their children to live in the world as it actually is. That includes the vulgar, violent, and hateful things in the world." <sarcasm>That must mean children growing up in war zones and neighborhoods with a lot of crime must be the best "prepared" children, and parents should try to emulate such environments for their children's benefit.</sarcasm>

zach 17y ago

There will always be decisions which seem arbitrary and subjective in these situations because what's going on here is a very rough categorization with no room for nuance. And the very idea of age as a measure of appropriateness is pretty arbitrary to begin with, after all. Parental controls and ratings are a quagmire. And the more technological the product, the stickier it gets.

roc 17y ago

"Apple did not censor" You don't split hairs with a weasel-word defense if you're committed to any sort of change. Note the difference between this (we didn't do anything wrong. we'll do better in the future) and Bezo's letter (we fucked up. even if we were technically right, it was still wrong. we'll do better in the future) I can believe Bezos. Schiller? Not for a second.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Perhaps Apple should rebrand themselves as the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

colinprince 17y ago

Something still does not smell right about this. Phil Schiller: "Apple did not censor the content in this developer’s application and Apple did not reject this developer’s application for including references to common swear words." Phil Crosby: "They provided screenshots of the words 'shit' and 'fuck' showing up in our dictionary's search results." I'm sorry, this is a strong suggestion that without these types of words, the app would be approved. If you don't call that censorship, then call it "chilling effect", but the outcome is the same. And the other thing that doesn't ring true is the following oddity. Phil Schiller: "...anyone can easily see that Apple has previously approved other dictionary applications in the App Store that include all of the 'swear' words..." Then why did Apple reject the app for these swear words? (And why is 'swear' in inverted commas?) [edit: formatting]

mrshoe 17y ago

Well this effectively makes the parental controls useless. I don't want my kids to watch porn on their phones, but I do want them to have dictionaries. It seems that Apple is treating parental controls as way to check a checkbox in a feature list, instead of as something that can actually be used.

gcheong 17y ago

I wish George Carlin was alive to see this: (NSFW esp if you work at apple) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

voom 17y ago

You HN folks are full of it. http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sharkfish http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sharkfish I used what is marginally a "swear word" and was modded into oblivion and subsequently banned from HN for that infraction. Some of you hate being reminded you are hypocrites. I have another account I use where I game you guys and get points. So this one is throwaway as well.

GeneralMaximus 17y ago

"" That Schiller was willing to respond in such detail and length, on the record, is the first proof I’ve seen that Apple’s leadership is trying to make the course correction that many of us see as necessary for the long-term success of the platform. "" No, they're not. If they were even trying, they would have scrapped the approval process altogether. True, the approval process has resulted in many high quality applications, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not completely retarded. Also, funny to see John Gruber changing his stance on the issue in one day.

dan_the_welder 17y ago

Oh noes! "unfiltered internet access" is bad.

xiaoma 17y ago

The idea that teenagers under 17 need to be shielded from certain language is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they can handle it. I listened to NIN as a 14 year old, read "profane" Heinlein stories and watched numerous violent movies. I don't feel particularly corrupted by it.