Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#21

Post by GHFigs » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 9:40 AM UTC

I don't understand the purpose of this post. The author seems to disagree with the rejection, but more interested in promoting the rejection than actually getting the application published.

Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that really the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#22

Post by stingraycharles » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 9:50 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #20

stingraycharles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#23

Post by pistoriusp » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 11:14 AM UTC

pqs wrote: post #17

pistoriusp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never underestimate how often people will find reasons to be offended:

Drive down a road... See a billboard that you don't agree with... Offended!

The "fk Jesus" group on Facebook... Offended!

I usually only tend to get offended when someone is trying to offend me directly. But other people are not so liberal with their egos.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#24

Post by GHFigs » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 11:30 AM UTC

pqs wrote: post #17

pistoriusp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it.

You cannot count on people behaving this way, least of all when it comes to politics.

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

Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as endorsement.

For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved for the store, but one (it doesn't matter which) is only approved with a higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political issue in every country Apple runs a store.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#25

Post by tjogin » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 11:45 AM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #22

tjogin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.

Intent of what law? How does the law even come into this?

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#26

Post by vlad » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 1:00 PM UTC

andreyf wrote: post #13

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…

I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race, ethnicity, or religion of the developers.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#27

Post by stingraycharles » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 1:11 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #25

stingraycharles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.

Intent of what law? How does the law even come into this?

You mean censorship isn't illegal in the US ? As far as I was aware, censorship is outlawed in most Western countries, by protecting freedom of speech.

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#28

Post by tjogin » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 1:23 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #22

tjogin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.

(For some reason I can't reply to your last post, so I reply here instead.)

No, censorship is not illegal. Freedom of speech protects your right to speak without getting silenced or punished for it (with some limits, like hate speech) by the government.

But your freedom of speech does not imply that you are free to express anything in any private arena. For instance, on this board we are not allowed to use inflammatory language or basically be douches in any way. This does not conflict with freedom of speech, because you are free to express your inflammatory opinions somewhere else, like on your own blog or in your own kitchen.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to publicize anything on any private platform anywhere (like the App Store).

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#29

Post by stingraycharles » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 2:23 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #28

stingraycharles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering", which I don't think is the intent of the law.

(For some reason I can't reply to your last post, so I reply here instead.) No, censorship is not illegal. Freedom of speech protects your right to speak without getting silenced or punished for it (with some limits, like hate speech) by the government. But your freedom of speech does not imply that you are free to express anything in any private arena. For instance, on this board we are not allowed to use inflammato…

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.

Guess my interpretation for the word always was wrong. I figured censorship meant the act of limiting freedom of speech; you seem to define censorship as any act of filtering.

Would you classify Google's filtering of web content as censorship ? If not, how is that different from Apple filtering AppStore applications ?

Re: Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

#30

Post by tjogin » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 2:33 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #27

tjogin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent of what law? How does the law even come into this?

You mean censorship isn't illegal in the US ? As far as I was aware, censorship is outlawed in most Western countries, by protecting freedom of speech.

Again, I can't reply to your last post. Very weird.

> Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Although I don't think it's called just "censorship" when, for instance, an oppressive government puts people in jail, or put them to death, for saying things the government doesn't like.

Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do, what so ever, with private arenas. You are not protected by freedom of speech in a private arena, at all. Apple is censoring their App Store content, and they are within their legal right to do so.

Generally speaking, although it is completely legal to censor content in a private arena, it is sort of frowned upon by its community. Usually. I think this is why the iPhone developer is crying foul, using the word "censorship", because people frown upon that practice.