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

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#51

Post by stepherm »

calambrac wrote: post #38
roc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does "Urban" necessarily imply "poor minority"? In most urban areas there are plenty of people that are not "poor minorities".

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#52

Post by stepherm »

roc wrote: post #40
phil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 foo…

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#53

Post by pkaler »

jamiequint wrote: post #47
pkaler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#54

Post by roc »

rwolf wrote: post #36
roc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#56

Post by calambrac »

stepherm wrote: post #51
calambrac wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#57

Post by anigbrowl »

pkaler wrote: post #53
jamiequint wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#58

Post by calambrac »

roc wrote: post #54
rwolf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#59

Post by Retric »

pkaler wrote: post #53
jamiequint wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring

#60

Post by caffeine »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #46
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

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.

Post reply on HN