Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App(lambdajive.wordpress.com)
lambdajive.wordpress.com
Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App
http://lambdajive.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/isinglepayer-iphone-app-censored-by-apple/?preview=true&preview_id=29&preview_nonce=94ad9174dd
35 comments
Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.
FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged" applications, as well.
So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged".
Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.
So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged".
Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.
I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race, ethnicity, or religion of the developers.
It is censorship. But it isn't illegal, or even morally wrong. Apple is within their rights to censor the content of their App Store.
However, people generally frown upon censorship, even in private arenas where it is perfectly legal to apply censorship. This is why, I presume, the article author is throwing the C-word around which such enthusiasm.
However, people generally frown upon censorship, even in private arenas where it is perfectly legal to apply censorship. This is why, I presume, the article author is throwing the C-word around which such enthusiasm.
In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place.
What sort of a right. Government given? UN given. God given or some sort of other metaphysically given right? There is nothing in the definition of censorship that says it must be an unjust and indefensible violation your widely recognised right.
What sort of a right. Government given? UN given. God given or some sort of other metaphysically given right? There is nothing in the definition of censorship that says it must be an unjust and indefensible violation your widely recognised right.
I'm puzzled by this rejection.
"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store)
I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)
"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store)
I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)
During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs.
He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve"
http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...
He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve"
http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...
That would be valid if customers had to use the App! If it was compulsory. But, people only use the Apps they want to, the ones they download! So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it.
There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it.
You cannot count on people behaving this way, least of all when it comes to politics.
There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as endorsement.
For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved for the store, but one (it doesn't matter which) is only approved with a higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political issue in every country Apple runs a store.
You cannot count on people behaving this way, least of all when it comes to politics.
There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as endorsement.
For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved for the store, but one (it doesn't matter which) is only approved with a higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political issue in every country Apple runs a store.
What I cannot understand at all is why I'm able to install any kind of software on my mackbook and why I can't do this on my iPhone. It's just absurd.
Never underestimate how often people will find reasons to be offended:
Drive down a road... See a billboard that you don't agree with... Offended!
The "fk Jesus" group on Facebook... Offended!
I usually only tend to get offended when someone is trying to offend me directly. But other people are not so liberal with their egos.
Drive down a road... See a billboard that you don't agree with... Offended!
The "fk Jesus" group on Facebook... Offended!
I usually only tend to get offended when someone is trying to offend me directly. But other people are not so liberal with their egos.
But this is their problem. I should be able to use any kind of software in my iPhone.
Drudge and the like are news sites with heavy biases, not just a political statement-type app.
For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.
For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.
oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple."
i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.
i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.
I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?
the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'.
the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.
the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.
If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?
Because Apple makes it very clear in their TOS that they don't want that. And obviously, the iSinglePayer app is politically charged. The developer of the app decided to develop it anyway, and now he's claiming he's being censored.
It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.
It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.
The problem is that there are approved iPhone apps which are overtly politically charged, like this one: http://www.conservativetalkingpoints.com/
So there's obviously a double standard, though I'd guess it's at the level of individual reviewers rather than Apple policy.
So there's obviously a double standard, though I'd guess it's at the level of individual reviewers rather than Apple policy.
How does making something clear in a TOS not make this censorship?
Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."
How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not in their right to censor the content on their AppStore, I'm just saying it is censorship.
Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."
How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not in their right to censor the content on their AppStore, I'm just saying it is censorship.
Okay, according to that definition, you may be right. Ultimately, I think it's up to a judge to decide; censorship is not as black and white.
Take Google for example. They automatically filter various type of sites from their index (phishing, link farms, etc). According to the definition on Wikipedia, that is censorship too: it's communicative material, which is considered harmful by Google.
Take Google for example. They automatically filter various type of sites from their index (phishing, link farms, etc). According to the definition on Wikipedia, that is censorship too: it's communicative material, which is considered harmful by Google.
Why would the definition of the word 'censorship' be up to a judge to decide? And why would a judge be involved at all? It isn't illegal to censor something.
The fact that this is censorship doesn't mean that Apple aren't in their right to do so. They are, as much as I dislike it.
Voicing one's discontent with their policy is probably the only way we can make them change it, though.
The fact that this is censorship doesn't mean that Apple aren't in their right to do so. They are, as much as I dislike it.
Voicing one's discontent with their policy is probably the only way we can make them change it, though.
Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.
(For some reason I can't reply to your last post, so I reply here instead.)
No, censorship is not illegal. Freedom of speech protects your right to speak without getting silenced or punished for it (with some limits, like hate speech) by the government.
But your freedom of speech does not imply that you are free to express anything in any private arena. For instance, on this board we are not allowed to use inflammatory language or basically be douches in any way. This does not conflict with freedom of speech, because you are free to express your inflammatory opinions somewhere else, like on your own blog or in your own kitchen.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to publicize anything on any private platform anywhere (like the App Store).
No, censorship is not illegal. Freedom of speech protects your right to speak without getting silenced or punished for it (with some limits, like hate speech) by the government.
But your freedom of speech does not imply that you are free to express anything in any private arena. For instance, on this board we are not allowed to use inflammatory language or basically be douches in any way. This does not conflict with freedom of speech, because you are free to express your inflammatory opinions somewhere else, like on your own blog or in your own kitchen.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to publicize anything on any private platform anywhere (like the App Store).
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.
Guess my interpretation for the word always was wrong. I figured censorship meant the act of limiting freedom of speech; you seem to define censorship as any act of filtering.
Would you classify Google's filtering of web content as censorship ? If not, how is that different from Apple filtering AppStore applications ?
Guess my interpretation for the word always was wrong. I figured censorship meant the act of limiting freedom of speech; you seem to define censorship as any act of filtering.
Would you classify Google's filtering of web content as censorship ? If not, how is that different from Apple filtering AppStore applications ?
Intent of what law? How does the law even come into this?
You mean censorship isn't illegal in the US ? As far as I was aware, censorship is outlawed in most Western countries, by protecting freedom of speech.
Again, I can't reply to your last post. Very weird.
> Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Although I don't think it's called just "censorship" when, for instance, an oppressive government puts people in jail, or put them to death, for saying things the government doesn't like.
Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do, what so ever, with private arenas. You are not protected by freedom of speech in a private arena, at all. Apple is censoring their App Store content, and they are within their legal right to do so.
Generally speaking, although it is completely legal to censor content in a private arena, it is sort of frowned upon by its community. Usually. I think this is why the iPhone developer is crying foul, using the word "censorship", because people frown upon that practice.
> Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Although I don't think it's called just "censorship" when, for instance, an oppressive government puts people in jail, or put them to death, for saying things the government doesn't like.
Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do, what so ever, with private arenas. You are not protected by freedom of speech in a private arena, at all. Apple is censoring their App Store content, and they are within their legal right to do so.
Generally speaking, although it is completely legal to censor content in a private arena, it is sort of frowned upon by its community. Usually. I think this is why the iPhone developer is crying foul, using the word "censorship", because people frown upon that practice.
An application promoting single payer health care is not even remotely comparable to a flame comment.
but news.yc also doesn't allow political articles, for the most part, because they tend to attract unproductive arguments. i'm going to guess that's the real reason that guy's app was rejected, rather than 'censorship'.
One day Apple will realize the feeling of suffocation going through most iPhone developers.
Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that really the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?