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

Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

lambdajive.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#11

Post by tjogin »

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…

If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#12

Post by pistoriusp »

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)

During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs.

He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?

Steve"

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#13

Post by andreyf »

hyperbovine wrote: post #6

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…

FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged" applications, as well.

So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged".

Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#15

Post by netsp »

hyperbovine wrote: post #6

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…

In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place.

What sort of a right. Government given? UN given. God given or some sort of other metaphysically given right? There is nothing in the definition of censorship that says it must be an unjust and indefensible violation your widely recognised right.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#16

Post by stingraycharles »

tjogin wrote: post #11
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…

If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?

Because Apple makes it very clear in their TOS that they don't want that. And obviously, the iSinglePayer app is politically charged. The developer of the app decided to develop it anyway, and now he's claiming he's being censored.

It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#17

Post by pqs »

pistoriusp wrote: post #12
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)

During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs. He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point? Steve" http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-…

That would be valid if customers had to use the App! If it was compulsory. But, people only use the Apps they want to, the ones they download! So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it.

There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#18

Post by tjogin »

stingraycharles wrote: post #16
tjogin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the difference between that and censorship?

Because Apple makes it very clear in their TOS that they don't want that. And obviously, the iSinglePayer app is politically charged. The developer of the app decided to develop it anyway, and now he's claiming he's being censored. It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.

How does making something clear in a TOS not make this censorship?

Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."

How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not in their right to censor the content on their AppStore, I'm just saying it is censorship.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#19

Post by stingraycharles »

tjogin wrote: post #18
stingraycharles wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Apple makes it very clear in their TOS that they don't want that. And obviously, the iSinglePayer app is politically charged. The developer of the app decided to develop it anyway, and now he's claiming he's being censored. It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.

How does making something clear in a TOS not make this censorship? Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor." How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not in their right to ce…

Okay, according to that definition, you may be right. Ultimately, I think it's up to a judge to decide; censorship is not as black and white.

Take Google for example. They automatically filter various type of sites from their index (phishing, link farms, etc). According to the definition on Wikipedia, that is censorship too: it's communicative material, which is considered harmful by Google.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#20

Post by tjogin »

stingraycharles wrote: post #19
tjogin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does making something clear in a TOS not make this censorship? Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor." How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not in their right to ce…

Okay, according to that definition, you may be right. Ultimately, I think it's up to a judge to decide; censorship is not as black and white. Take Google for example. They automatically filter various type of sites from their index (phishing, link farms, etc). According to the definition on Wikipedia, that is censorship too: it's communicative material, which is considered harmful by Google.

Why would the definition of the word 'censorship' be up to a judge to decide? And why would a judge be involved at all? It isn't illegal to censor something.

The fact that this is censorship doesn't mean that Apple aren't in their right to do so. They are, as much as I dislike it.

Voicing one's discontent with their policy is probably the only way we can make them change it, though.

Post reply on HN