Blogs
Mar 23, 2011 at 5:12 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
If you want to see the results of a group like Exodus, watch this excellent film online:
http://www.nfb.ca/film/cure_for_love
The bottom line is that Apple's scattershot approval process for apps, and the vague or nonsensical reasoning behind their decisions, out and out sucks. This is just one more example of it. And it really makes me wish there were other hardware alternatives for good media use and networking.
Censorship is when the government tells you (or anyone) they're not allowed free speech. Nothing like that happened here. Apple is free to keep producing the app or not, at their discretion.
Apple's decision to pull the app was based purely on market forces. If there were a greater demand for this app than the potential backlash, they'd have kept it. Their decision to pull it was based on capitalism, not censorship.
But talk with pretty much any developer and they'll tell you it's a royal pain in the ass to get an app approved. That if they reject it, it's often very unclear on WHY it's been rejected. Forget approval on anything even the slightest bit risque. And if you're an independent developer, it's even harder to get feedback or approval. That's a lousy way to run a business, IMO. It doesn't encourage variety or experimentation.
And again, I use their products and will continue to do so until there's a decent alternative. But that doesn't mean I'm not free to criticize their mistakes.
Exactly. They can pick and choose what to sell in as random a way as they want. That's not censorship.
The problem with the iPhone is that Apple has so much control over the platform and how it's used. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but) the only way to get official/approved apps is through Apple itself - modify the phone to use an unlicensed app, and you've just voided your warranty. In the context of the already heavily delimited App Store, it's right for Apple to get rid of the Exodus app, but – there's probably a good case to be made that Apple has a moral obligation to open up the iPhone to whatever apps people develop (even if they have no such legal obligation).
Is there some reason you are compelled to use an iPhone? And wouldn't your extreme hypothetical presuppose the government setting the conditions where such a monopoly could exist? So in your example, yes that would be censorship: a state-sponsored, single media source. How else could there be no bookstores or libraries?
As someone who wrote an iPhone app that was heavily (and bizarrely) censored by Disney, oops, I mean Apple, I'd like to remind people that Apple's iron-fisted control of its App Store™ cuts both ways.
Apple could just as easily censor the Savage Love app.
I'm glad they pulled the ex-gay app in response to the outcry. Apple has an image that they want to project, and doesn't want hatred of gay people to be part of it.
@17: Definitely "hooray". While we may disagree with the system overall (and can actively oppose it), but once we accept that that system is not going anywhere in the immediate future, we can celebrate prosocial actions or shifts within the context of that system. It's the same reason we should vote for the lesser of two evils in elections: our entire political system is corrupt and beholden to monied interests, but there are still degrees of evil within that system, and making it not-shitty for as many people as possible as long as it continues to exist in its present form is something we need to be doing.
Hmmm. Only a very near-sighted liberal could look at this and think "hooray".
Defending someone's ability to air their point of view, especially if it's a controversial point of view, is the ultimate in progressive, prosocial liberalism.
Attacking your political opponents by removing their ability to speak is the ultimate in cowardly, reactionary conservatism.
What's more, this strategy isn't even effective. The Christians will get far more mileage out of Apple's censorship than they would have gotten out of this ridiculous app.
you are wise.
My basic point is that big companies should be held to moral/social/decency/whatever standards, not just market/profitability standards. It would be wrong to say that Apple's disallowing of an app is straight-up "censorship" - I'm not saying it is - but it's also wrong to pretend that the moral ramifications are the same as if some local shop decided not to stock a certain item. It's a much bigger deal (hence this whole discussion).
If you ran a business, would you let folks post flyers promoting the KKK, or Nazism on your premises?
I watched this after the last time that you posted the link. It was so sad and joyful and incredible.
@25: Nobody took away anyone's ability "to air their point of view."
Yes, Apple has done exactly that to countless app developers on their publication platform.
Apple is a private company, and has the right to choose who has access to their platform.
I'm not questioning Apple's right to impose its values on its customer base, I'm questioning whether we, as liberals and Apple customers, should be cheering this behavior on.
"If you ran a business, would you let folks post flyers promoting the KKK, or Nazism on your premises?"
If I ran a printing press, a photo processing shop, blogging platform, or an App Store, I would most definitely not ban material simply because I or some portion of my customers disagreed with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22…
No wonder he's such an angry old shit, and he can't even beat off because he made that a sin too (Onan).
This actually explains a lot of the fundamentalist's agenda.
There is no Constitutional right to have an iPhone app. Anyone can speak their mind, but they don't have the right to force Apple to air their views. Apple is not stopping them from preaching their anti-gay views. Apple doesn't have to allow them to do it via Apple's property.
Virtually all companies have policies concerning what they will or will not sell. I'm sure Walmart would take issue if someone wanted to sell swastika t-shirts through them. Would that mean they are taking away someone's ability "to air their point of view"?
I don't care if Apple's values are 100% in tune with mine (freaky gay porn with no "Christian" haters allowed); I want the choice of what's on my iWhatever to be mine, not Steve Jobs's.
Which is why I refuse to own an iPhone or an iPad. I want to play outside of Apple's walled garden.
I watched the whole thing and the Ana chick sounded so contemptuous every time she talked about or to her husband that I couldn't buy this shit.
"Are you saying that, since only governments can enact true censorship, large media companies shouldn't have any moral obligation to protect free speech?"
No, I'm not. They do have a moral obligation. But if they fail to live up to it, then shame on them. We should apply market pressure on them. Unfortunately we too often don't apply that pressure. Socially-conscious investing, for example, is a relatively new thing.
"it's also wrong to pretend that the moral ramifications are the same as if some local shop decided not to stock a certain item"
Yes, that's right. It's a bigger problem. We should pay more attention to these things than we do as Americans. My original post was directed at the use of the word "censorship" which is one of several words that I believe is often misused. (see also "genius" and "informed")
I also was taking exception to your dystopia because Apple is such a small player in the grand scheme of things.
Whether or not this is censorship there have always been limits on what is considered protected speech. It seems like you're saying this app was ordinary political speech whereas others are saying it was a call to drive kids to suicide. Telling people they should ruin their own lives is not a political point of view.
Not on Apple's platform they can't. As far as I'm concerned, the size of Apple's market share is the orthogonal to the question of whether Apple's behavior is consistent with liberal principles.
Apple doesn't have to allow them to do it via Apple's property.
I repeat, I'm not questioning Apple's legal right to ban a point of view from their app store, I'm questioning whether doing so in this case advances the cause of liberalism, as the 140,000 people who signed this petition seem to think.
Walmart
Wrong analogy - Walmart is not in the business of providing infrastructure for the transmission of ideas. What if Verizon blocked access to The Stranger to all of its customers? What if Google scrubbed The Stranger from its search results? What if company that prints The Stranger suddenly decided to stop?
I believe companies in this particular line of business have a moral obligation to honor the 1st amendment, even if they have no legal obligation to do so.
@26 - I'm not saying Apple controls all media and ideas; I'm using an extreme situation to make a point. But, to go back to my award-winning bookstore saga: my example involves a single entity exerting an inordinate amount of control over a specific form of media, and that's really not so far off from what Apple's doing. The problem isn't Apple choosing what to sell in the App Store; the problem is that the App Store is the only place to get legitimate, native iPhone apps (right?). I really agree with this point by #28:
"I'm not questioning Apple's right to impose its values on its customer base, I'm questioning whether we, as liberals and Apple customers, should be cheering this behavior on."
It's weird for me to see people on a progressive blog supporting the moral right of a large, for-profit corporation to limit peoples' access to media. Given the current set-up of the App Store - in which apps are blocked all the time - I do think it was right of Apple to block the Exodus app, but the practice of blocking access to media still more-or-less sucks.
TL;DR version: I don't trust the free market to protect free speech.
If someone created an app that step by step described how to build a chemical weapon, and it's best placement for maximum casualties, should Apple sell that app in the name of preserving free speech?
Um, yes they are. (Sent from my iPhone)
There is not a Constitutional right to have an iPhone app.
The fact that you keep repeating this irrelevant point leads me to believe you aren't actually reading my comments.
an app that step by step described how to build a chemical weapon
No, of course they shouldn't endeavor to protect all speech. Not even the 1st amendment does that (e.g., shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, slander, disclosing classified information, threats of violence, disclosing confidential medical records, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc.)
And if it comes down to a question of degree, as in whether this is "bad enough" to merit the response it received, whose place is it to decide? Having been forced into conversion therapy against my will and defeated said therapy, I admit that part of me is taking your posts as straightsplaining that this just doesn't rise to the standard of heinous that would merit the protest that occurred. But then another part of me doesn't want to be greedy over the moral authority or try to be dictatorial about who gets to hold or express an opinion. Oh joy; I am going in circles.
I find it hilariously ironic that we are championing the very thing we ridicule and openly criticize the other side for. As much as I disagree with Exodus, I disagree with Apple's censorship more, and I disagree with the liberal hypocritical pressuring media most. You all should be ashamed.
So, if you feel Apple shouldn't sell an app describing chemical weapon production, then you are also for limiting speech. The only difference is where you want to draw the line.
How about a KKK lynching simulation app? Should Apple sell that to give the KKK gets a voice in the Apple store? Who should and shouldn't get sell their apps through Apple's property, and who should make those decisions?
Apple, as a private company, does have the right to dictate who gets to post to the app store. It's the same actions that bars have by posting "We refuse the right to sell to anyone" and "No loudmouths, no bigots.". As a media company, though, the limitation does have a World According to Apple feel to it, which is a bit unsavory. And, half the reasoning is "Wont somebody think of the children?"
Liberals freaking out over the app, writing in, and signing petitions is worse. I've read many accounts by liberals blasting conservatives in general, and more specifically the Family Research Council for their same actions over what they consider to be an offense: a bare tit at the Super Bowl, foul language, etc. Doing the same thing turns us into them: Suppressors of thought and expression, electing to make people choose what we want them to choose instead of allowing to come into the right on their own.
All companies have images they want to put out to the public. Apple is no exception. They don't want to be porn distributors, or the company that enables racists or homophobes to use Apple property to push their message.
If people don't like how Apple chooses what apps they will make available through their store, you can always buy a different product. No one should ever limit themselves to one outlet for information. If you only rely on Apple, then that is your own self imposed limitation.
I agree to some extent that I'm uneasy about the petition process. It feels like ballot initiatives and Proposition 8 all over again, just on a slightly different scale. But if no superiour response is offered, might it be the least of evils?
Such as Handstand VJ bitching about the Glee kiss. Sure, she's crazy, but the kiss violated her (and a whole bunch of people's) morals, no matter how much you disagree with those morals. If Fox (or, whoever airs Glee) starts censoring out the gay from Glee, and VJ won, its the same type of victory.
@48 Whether or not the creator needs to be tried for what he said is content dependent, but that is also the property of the creator of the content, not the distributor. Persecute the person who is doing the inciting, not the one selling it. The one selling it is just trying to make money, unless they have a consistent idealogical message with everything they sell.
The question I have for you is how they got pics of your related children in the first place to distribute over the net.
P.S. Using your, or your child's likeness, for something other than a news story about that person, is actually a liability, and illegal, regardless of where they got the photo. You kind of need to consent to that. Also, this is doubly true for personages under the age of 18, as there are laws of consent that specifically define underage children.
You don't need consent to take photos on the street or public places. There is no expectation of privacy. Since that actual image created would be a computer simulation, no consent would be required, as no real human beings actually did any of the acts being illustrated. So again, for the sake of free speech, would you be for an app that simulated images of children you love in sexual situations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality…
Again, if the name of free speech would you be for a child porn app with virtual images of children you love featured? Quit side stepping.
What if Apple was a little more rightwing and they kept their original abridgment of Oscar Wilde? Would you not have a problem with that as well?
Look at what Dan himself calls censorship, btw. Wasn't this just a private entity doing the same thing as Apple? Not saying it's good or bad, although my sentiment is on the side of free expression more than limited expression. I also think you do have to take into account market share and anti-trust concerns over the app store before you write off censorship entirely.
"Censorship is wrong when they do it to us, when we attempt to do it to them, and when we do it to ourselves.
And censorship always and everywhere backfires."
When you open up a business, you can let people post all the Nazi, KKK, NAMBLA, Exodus, promotional flyers on your property. You won't be in business long, but feel free. It's your right.
Really?
/sage
/Parsley