Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store
89 comments
"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"
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I would assume the reason there are separate settings for Safari is because you can delete 3rd party apps but you can't delete safari from the phone.
I agree. It seems that apps that display unfiltered internet content should just inherit whatever setting the user has applied to safari. That way it's at least consistent.
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.
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.
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.
We're totally fine with established rich white vulgarity, but new poor black vulgarity? Come on now, that's just crossing the line.
Because urban dictionary is populated by poor minority kids in the city?
It seems like there's a different between "content originating from urbandictionary.com" and "urban slang." The latter phrase has an understood (read: charged) meaning which predates urbandictionary.com
Do you really think he's talking about jive turkey, ho, bitch, nigga or dawg?
No, I think that where he meant 'extremely vulgar language', he mistakenly reached for a term that has racial connotations.
How is that a mistake? Should he screen every word that he ever tries to communicate to ensure that nobody could possibly misinterpret or distort his statements into something offensive? Or is it reasonable for a person to assume that their audience will not brand them a racist for using a term that in isolation has very little to do with race?
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race? If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way? If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race? If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way? If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Yes, your hyperbole aside, I do think people should take care in how they speak. 'Urban slang' is pretty clearly associated with a particular socio-economic group (regardless of if you wish to acknowledge that or not), and saying that it, in particular, is the language that needs to be censored is not A Good Thing.
But that doesn't mean this is a grievous sin, or that it's worth getting worked up over. I didn't and am not excoriating him for it. It just struck me as I was reading the article, and I thought it was worth pointing out.
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race?
No, I don't think Schiller is a racist. But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism, that the terms that were deemed too offensive may actually have been inner-city slang that has equivalent terms in the accepted dictionary. If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way?
I would hope they wouldn't read it and decide that he was a racist, no, but I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Yes, I think it was a bad choice of words. Even if you ignore that there are racial connotations in the phrase, it still doesn't express what he means. Who cares about 'city' slang? Suburban or rural slang can't be extremely vulgar?
Anyways, I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use, when the issue at hand is that his company is censoring a dictionary.
But that doesn't mean this is a grievous sin, or that it's worth getting worked up over. I didn't and am not excoriating him for it. It just struck me as I was reading the article, and I thought it was worth pointing out.
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race?
No, I don't think Schiller is a racist. But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism, that the terms that were deemed too offensive may actually have been inner-city slang that has equivalent terms in the accepted dictionary. If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way?
I would hope they wouldn't read it and decide that he was a racist, no, but I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Yes, I think it was a bad choice of words. Even if you ignore that there are racial connotations in the phrase, it still doesn't express what he means. Who cares about 'city' slang? Suburban or rural slang can't be extremely vulgar?
Anyways, I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use, when the issue at hand is that his company is censoring a dictionary.
I was not being hyperbolic. In your first post you specifically indicated that you interpreted his meaning as racist. If your concerns reflect reality, it is a real risk and should be treated as such. My contention is that your concerns do not reflect reality, and that it is unlikely that very many reasonable people at all would have mistaken this for racism.
'Urban slang' is pretty clearly associated with a particular socio-economic group (regardless of if you wish to acknowledge that or not)
Still, that's not a very convincing argument. You say yourself that you don't believe Schiller was referring to race (contradicting your initial statement), so why should I? Because in some other context it could be used to express something racist? My Uncle Tom likes Oreos as much as he likes Twinkies. Does that make me racist?
I did not and do not claim that "urban slang" could not be interpreted to have racial connotations. I do claim that in this case you have to willfully distort the author's intent in order to read it the way you expressed in your original post, and that characterizing it as the author's mistake is unwarranted.
But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism
Define "socially embedded".
If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
This is ambiguous: you're implying that racism is driving it just after stating that you don't believe that was what was meant. You're reading something into the text that is not there, and not citing any other reason.
I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
What does that mean? My question was unambiguous. Your answer is not. You're saying you think people both did and did not interpret it as racist.
I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use
We aren't talking about whether, but of how much. You appear to support self-censorship even while seeming to acknowledge that few if any in the audience actually regarded the term as reflecting racist intent. I do not agree. I think that is unreasonably excessive in the majority of such circumstances.
'Urban slang' is pretty clearly associated with a particular socio-economic group (regardless of if you wish to acknowledge that or not)
Still, that's not a very convincing argument. You say yourself that you don't believe Schiller was referring to race (contradicting your initial statement), so why should I? Because in some other context it could be used to express something racist? My Uncle Tom likes Oreos as much as he likes Twinkies. Does that make me racist?
I did not and do not claim that "urban slang" could not be interpreted to have racial connotations. I do claim that in this case you have to willfully distort the author's intent in order to read it the way you expressed in your original post, and that characterizing it as the author's mistake is unwarranted.
But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism
Define "socially embedded".
If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
This is ambiguous: you're implying that racism is driving it just after stating that you don't believe that was what was meant. You're reading something into the text that is not there, and not citing any other reason.
I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
What does that mean? My question was unambiguous. Your answer is not. You're saying you think people both did and did not interpret it as racist.
I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use
We aren't talking about whether, but of how much. You appear to support self-censorship even while seeming to acknowledge that few if any in the audience actually regarded the term as reflecting racist intent. I do not agree. I think that is unreasonably excessive in the majority of such circumstances.
Are you serious? I don't think he's a racist, I don't think he had racist intent, but I think he accidentally used a racist phrasing, and that he should be more careful in the future. That's really a difficult concept for you to grasp?
How can an author be more careful? By never using any word that can possibly be distorted? That's hopeless, and has a more deleterious effect on communication than the misunderstandings it seeks to prevent.
As an avid English speaker, I wholeheartedly reject this notion of turning the language into a minefield of words you absolutely must avoid even when nobody is likely to misinterpret them.
As an avid English speaker, I wholeheartedly reject this notion of turning the language into a minefield of words you absolutely must avoid even when nobody is likely to misinterpret them.
I think 'urban slang' obviously refers to the language of a particular socio-economic group, and that avoiding using it in an inappropriate context is just as simple as not swearing in front of your grandmother or not blurting out to every attractive woman you meet that you want to have sex with her or whatever. I mean, really, do you have Tourette's or something? You never think it's appropriate to filter the words that first come to mind to say?
You never think it's appropriate to filter the words that first come to mind to say?
I have explicitly stated otherwise in a prior post. You're choosing to actively distort my words. Please don't do that. We disagree on the degree. I find the degree of self-censorship you advocate to be excessive.
I have explicitly stated otherwise in a prior post. You're choosing to actively distort my words. Please don't do that. We disagree on the degree. I find the degree of self-censorship you advocate to be excessive.
Wait... what? Being prejudiced against 'urban slang' is okay because poor minority kids in the city obviously don't update online dictionaries?
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.
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.
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.
Why does "Urban" necessarily imply "poor minority"? In most urban areas there are plenty of people that are not "poor minorities".
It doesn't 'necessarily' imply that, but it is a widely-used euphemism for inner city hip-hop culture. Acting like it's not, that the term arises from the name of the slang dictionary (and not the other way around), is just wrong.
"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.
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.
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.
Fuck that. It is exactly the same thing, but the lexicon has evolved.
That's exactly right. Mr Schiller's reply is one of the least intelligent things I have ever heard anyone say.
There's a brilliant episode in The Life of Brian that makes fun of people who are unable to take into account the purpose and context in which words are used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm2BsjACkuI
There's a brilliant episode in The Life of Brian that makes fun of people who are unable to take into account the purpose and context in which words are used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm2BsjACkuI
I think a fundamental question is "Why does the content rating come with an age attached?" Because that's really what causes stigma.
In other words, if NinjaWords was simply required to put a warning on their app that says, "This dictionary can be used to reference strong language," I doubt anybody (parents, Apple or developers) would have a problem.
The issue is that various different types of content get munged together through some obscure function to form an "Age" rating, which appears to be the "Government Recommended Prudeness" level.
It would be more useful to parents AND developers if we could simply attach a badge warning specifically about content within each app ("This browser may be used to access 3rd party content including sexual, violent, or vulgar themes"). Let the parents decide for themselves how that translates to age.
In other words, if NinjaWords was simply required to put a warning on their app that says, "This dictionary can be used to reference strong language," I doubt anybody (parents, Apple or developers) would have a problem.
The issue is that various different types of content get munged together through some obscure function to form an "Age" rating, which appears to be the "Government Recommended Prudeness" level.
It would be more useful to parents AND developers if we could simply attach a badge warning specifically about content within each app ("This browser may be used to access 3rd party content including sexual, violent, or vulgar themes"). Let the parents decide for themselves how that translates to age.
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.
"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."
I wonder about that.
I wrote the Nihongo app, which, like NinjaWords, kept getting rejected until I finally set the rating to 17+.
When it was finally in the AppStore, friends told me that an "are you sure, since this app has Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity and Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes"-type warning came up just before they hit "Buy".
I wonder how many people hesitated or declined to buy the app b/c of that.
I wonder about that.
I wrote the Nihongo app, which, like NinjaWords, kept getting rejected until I finally set the rating to 17+.
When it was finally in the AppStore, friends told me that an "are you sure, since this app has Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity and Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes"-type warning came up just before they hit "Buy".
I wonder how many people hesitated or declined to buy the app b/c of that.
That's troubling. I've been thinking that it's OK if the ratings are strict or inflated, as long as there's no stigma attached to a 17+ rating.
But a warning before you buy certainly stigmatizes 17+ apps. I bet lots of people hesitated.
But a warning before you buy certainly stigmatizes 17+ apps. I bet lots of people hesitated.
Well for one thing, Apple does not let you give out promo codes for 17+ apps, which is a big handicap for promotion of your work.
Similarly, I wrote the Jishobot app and had to change its rating up to 17+. I'm calling bullshit on Phil Schiller's response. Am I allowed to say that?
Similarly, I wrote the Jishobot app and had to change its rating up to 17+. I'm calling bullshit on Phil Schiller's response. Am I allowed to say that?
As of July 26th, it looks likes promo codes have been allowed again for 17+ apps.
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/26/update-promo-codes-are-now-al...
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/26/update-promo-codes-are-now-al...
Hey, look at that! Tried it and it works. Thanks for the correction.
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.
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.
I agree with your main point, but how does school censoring oppress minorities?
I completely agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but to be fair, the iPhone's parental controls do allow you to lock down the browser.
I expect my kids to eventually outsmart anything I do to hide things from them, long before they are old enough to vote.
Okay. That doesn't change the fact that you can lock down Safari on the iPhone, in direct contradiction of your statement "The browser is far worse. And not restricted."
Again, I agree with you in pretty much everything else you're saying. I just think its stupid to pretend like Apple is evil for this particular alleged hypocrisy - "Oh noes, they let kids look at porn without restriction in Safari but ban my dirty word dictionary!" - when their real fuckups are already sufficiently bad.
Again, I agree with you in pretty much everything else you're saying. I just think its stupid to pretend like Apple is evil for this particular alleged hypocrisy - "Oh noes, they let kids look at porn without restriction in Safari but ban my dirty word dictionary!" - when their real fuckups are already sufficiently bad.
Apple is doing the filtering in the app store. People do the filtering on the browser. That is an important difference.
No, it's not, at least not to the point you were originally making, which was that Apple has put in place a system of control for apps but not for their own browser - that's false.
Why are you hung up on this? I'm not saying "don't be pissed at Apple", I'm saying "don't be pissed at Apple for imaginary things".
Why are you hung up on this? I'm not saying "don't be pissed at Apple", I'm saying "don't be pissed at Apple for imaginary things".
I'm not hung up - I'm right. You do bad shit in your app, and apple doesn't let people get it. You do bad shit available in the browser, and apple leaves it up to you do not get it. It's the exact opposite policy.
If there were a parental control for the app store that blocked objectionable content, off by default, this whole issue would go away.
If there were a parental control for the app store that blocked objectionable content, off by default, this whole issue would go away.
If there were a parental control for the app store that blocked objectionable content, off by default, this whole issue would go away.
Um, that's exactly how the parental controls for the app store work. Apple uses the rating system to determine what apps are considered objectionable, the parental controls block access based on those ratings, and access to everything is enabled by default.
Um, that's exactly how the parental controls for the app store work. Apple uses the rating system to determine what apps are considered objectionable, the parental controls block access based on those ratings, and access to everything is enabled by default.
I thought apps with objectionable content don't get in the app store at all. Is that not the case?
That's not the case anymore, since the introduction of parental controls in iPhone OS 3.0. That should have been more than clear from the article, Schiller and Gruber both emphasize precisely that point.
But won't locking down the browser mean that you can't access the bus schedule, or their online school books, or whatever other good things there might be on the internet? Sort of a blunt weapon, no? It's like saying that because your eyes may see bad stuff, we will force them to wear eye patches...
I wasn't saying that this is a good feature, or that I'm glad it exists, I'm just pointing out that it's there, and that it seems like a waste of time and energy to pretend that Apple's censoring dirty words while giving parents no way to prevent kids from looking at porn with Safari.
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.
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.
How about commenting without cursing?
If you can't comment about the Ninjawords Dictionary without cursing then your opinion on Parental Controls is inherently flawed.
The Parental Controls aren't there for you. They are there for me. I don't want to fill my headspace with negativity.
If you can't comment about the Ninjawords Dictionary without cursing then your opinion on Parental Controls is inherently flawed.
The Parental Controls aren't there for you. They are there for me. I don't want to fill my headspace with negativity.
Swearing is only negative because of your own perception. To a lot people they're just words, strong words, but not necessarily negative as you seem to imply.
Yes, exactly. Swearing is negative because of my perception. That doesn't make it correct or incorrect. And Apple is doing me a service when they rate those type of Apps as 17+.
It's not censorship. It's about letting the consumer know what they are actually purchasing.
It's not censorship. It's about letting the consumer know what they are actually purchasing.
Did you read the article? It's an edictionary! That means you are only going to see curse words if you actually search for them. So what if you don't know what cunt or faggot mean (eg as a non native English speaker)? You shouldn't be able to find out? That's crazy.
IMO, 17+ denotes nudity or graphic violence not swearing. So saying 17+ is providing most people a hint that it's got swearing silly. If they really care they should have a 13+ (swearing) category.
Cue religious fundamentalist iPhone users demanding they be protected from seeing information about evolution or other heretical belief systems - the point being that these judgment calls are terribly subjective. Should other dictionaries (which allow one to look up swear words) also be rated 17+, in your view? Serious question.
I don't want to be protected. I want to be informed.
It fills your headspace with negativity that a dictionary includes the definitions of curse words? Its not like they peppered the menus and help with curse words.
Dude, parental controls are there for keeping words away from children. You are not the target audience, even if you like them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I downvoted you. I don't wish to be mean, but what you said is just plain stupid.
> Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
I totally agree with that. But I also believe that these people should not be allowed in a civilized society. Censorship is bad. End of question. There should be a zero-tolerance policy against any kind of censorship anywhere in the world.
And please, enough with the "what about the children?!" attitude. You are responsible for your children. The rest of the society doesn't have to suffer for them.
> Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
I totally agree with that. But I also believe that these people should not be allowed in a civilized society. Censorship is bad. End of question. There should be a zero-tolerance policy against any kind of censorship anywhere in the world.
And please, enough with the "what about the children?!" attitude. You are responsible for your children. The rest of the society doesn't have to suffer for them.
I can't tell if you're serious. If you're trolling, I applaud you. You got me. Now please leave.
If not, let me state unambigously that you have completely misconstrued what I said, ascribed opinions to me that I do not hold, and expressed one of the most horrifyingly totalitarian ideals I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I'm hesitant to write a more detailed reply because I'm not sure whether you've just fundamentally misunderstood what is being discussed or whether you're completely out of your mind. Do you truly wish for people to be imprisoned (or however else excluded from civilized society) for using parental controls on a prodcut they give to their children?
If not, let me state unambigously that you have completely misconstrued what I said, ascribed opinions to me that I do not hold, and expressed one of the most horrifyingly totalitarian ideals I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I'm hesitant to write a more detailed reply because I'm not sure whether you've just fundamentally misunderstood what is being discussed or whether you're completely out of your mind. Do you truly wish for people to be imprisoned (or however else excluded from civilized society) for using parental controls on a prodcut they give to their children?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+1 for the sentiment, and because I am in agreement with the general principle. However, I can't find it in myself to cheer for either side. Apple will continue to make ham fisted attempts to self-police in an effort to mitigate one type of fallout, while embroiling themselves in completely different fallout. The nett result is going to be an ugly, mudslinging cluster fk in which no winner can, or will, emerge. Google is up the same creek, similarly lacking an adequate paddle. Blending corporate prerogatives and social responsibility / community perception is like mixing magnesium and water, a bright flash and a funny smell are all that get left over.
"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>
<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>
That's not what I was implying. I was talking about the over-protective parents and adults who try so hard to shield their children from the bad things in the world (a noble idea), that they may unintentionally fail to prepare them for such encounters.
When this happens, who knows how these children will respond? We hope positively, but it could also be negatively or indifferently. Whatever it is, by this time, it's usually too late for a parent to provide meaningful advice.
Adults can still provide a positive, nurturing environment at home for their children and, at the same time, teach them about the right ways to handle unpleasant situations they may encounter in their lives. These "unpleasant situations" can occur in even the nicest of neighborhoods.
When this happens, who knows how these children will respond? We hope positively, but it could also be negatively or indifferently. Whatever it is, by this time, it's usually too late for a parent to provide meaningful advice.
Adults can still provide a positive, nurturing environment at home for their children and, at the same time, teach them about the right ways to handle unpleasant situations they may encounter in their lives. These "unpleasant situations" can occur in even the nicest of neighborhoods.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
I agree with you, I actually have a G1 and love it, the problem that I see is that if this behavior is tolerated by Apple, then other carriers / handset makers / marketplace maintainers could start to adopt a similar mindset.
Google has thankfully thrown their weight behind a free marketplace.
Google has thankfully thrown their weight behind a free marketplace.
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]
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]
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.
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.
Parental controls and ratings are a quagmire. And the more technological the product, the stickier it gets.
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.
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.
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
"" 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.
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.
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.
Oh noes! "unfiltered internet access" is bad.
Perhaps Apple should rebrand themselves as the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
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.