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

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#41

Post by ihumanable »

jrockway wrote: post #17
ihumanable wrote: post #6

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 sma…

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 j…

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#42

Post by pkaler »

ivankirigin wrote: post #10

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#43

Post by boucher »

gojomo wrote: post #9
brg wrote: post #4

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…

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 control…

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#44

Post by lutorm »

roc wrote: post #22
phil wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 any…

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#45

Post by mrshoe »

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#46

Post by fauigerzigerk »

ivankirigin wrote: post #10

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.

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

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#47

Post by jamiequint »

pkaler wrote: post #42
ivankirigin wrote: post #10

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.

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#48

Post by lutorm »

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.

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...

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#49

Post by calambrac »

lutorm wrote: post #48
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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#50

Post by umjames »

jimbokun wrote: post #30
umjames wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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." 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.

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.

Post reply on HN