Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App

Post by tjogin » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 2:39 PM UTC

vlad wrote: post #26

andreyf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by stingraycharles » Mon, Sep 28, 2009, 11:15 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #30

stingraycharles wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Freed…

Post by pqs » Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 7:55 PM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #24

pqs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 8:59 PM UTC

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.