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.
Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. 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?
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 y…
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 a…
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.
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'r…
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 i…
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?
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'r…
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.
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
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 particul…
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?
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 particul…
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.
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Re: Phil Schiller Responds to App Store Dictionary Censoring
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.