Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#1

Post by TFrancis » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 12:40 AM UTC

Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App
lambdajive.wordpress.com

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#2

Post by credo » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 3:15 AM UTC

I'm puzzled by this rejection.

"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store)

I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#3

Post by allenbrunson » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 3:48 AM UTC

oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple."

i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#4

Post by jgilliam » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 4:11 AM UTC

allenbrunson wrote: post #3

oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple." i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.

I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#5

Post by allenbrunson » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 4:20 AM UTC

jgilliam wrote: post #4

allenbrunson wrote: post #3

oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple." i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.

I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?

the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'.

the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#6

Post by hyperbovine » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 4:29 AM UTC

Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#7

Post by jgilliam » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 4:47 AM UTC

allenbrunson wrote: post #5

jgilliam wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?

the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'. the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any artic…

An application promoting single payer health care is not even remotely comparable to a flame comment.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#8

Post by CrazedGeek » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 4:49 AM UTC

credo wrote: post #2

I'm puzzled by this rejection. "Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store) I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)

Drudge and the like are news sites with heavy biases, not just a political statement-type app.

For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#9

Post by allenbrunson » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 5:00 AM UTC

jgilliam wrote: post #7

allenbrunson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they are being 'censored'. the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any artic…

An application promoting single payer health care is not even remotely comparable to a flame comment.

but news.yc also doesn't allow political articles, for the most part, because they tend to attract unproductive arguments. i'm going to guess that's the real reason that guy's app was rejected, rather than 'censorship'.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#10

Post by anonjon » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 5:31 AM UTC

Why all of the knee-jerk reactions to the word 'censorship'?

Rejecting an app on the basis that it is political is censorship. It is also censorship to reject an app based on the fact that it is porn or has 'dirty' words.

A "politically charged" app is considered inconvenient to have on the iphone store, as such, it is censored.

Apple may very well claim the right to reject any app that they see fit. This doesn't magically invalidate the fact that they censor certain apps. In fact, censorship is exactly the right that Apple claims here.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship