Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#31

Post by ivankirigin »

calambrac wrote: post #28
ivankirigin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#32

Post by calambrac »

roc wrote: post #27
calambrac wrote: post #12

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.

Because urban dictionary is populated by poor minority kids in the city?

Wait... what? Being prejudiced against 'urban slang' is okay because poor minority kids in the city obviously don't update online dictionaries?

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#33

Post by roc »

calambrac wrote: post #32
roc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because urban dictionary is populated by poor minority kids in the city?

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#34

Post by FiveFiftyOne »

umjames wrote: post #20
FiveFiftyOne wrote: post #13

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 o…

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 i…

+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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#35

Post by calambrac »

ivankirigin wrote: post #31
calambrac wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#36

Post by rwolf »

roc wrote: post #27
calambrac wrote: post #12

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.

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

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#37

Post by sp332 »

ivankirigin wrote: post #24
jsz0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

I agree with your main point, but how does school censoring oppress minorities?

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#38

Post by calambrac »

roc wrote: post #33
calambrac wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#39

Post by colinprince »

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]

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#40

Post by roc »

phil wrote: post #26
roc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN