Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baby Shaker App Outrage - ABC Front Page Story
- Thread starter gibbz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is that Apple is dictating what we should find offensive / inoffensive. Once you get into dictating morality, where do you draw the line? There are lots of movies and songs on the store with potentially objectionable content - should these be pulled too?
I think they should not have people manually checking each one - have an automated system filter out obvious stuff that breaks the rules and let people manually report the rest.
I think they should not have people manually checking each one - have an automated system filter out obvious stuff that breaks the rules and let people manually report the rest.
I would rather you write horribly offensive crap, then have someone regulate upon me their values. That is the point of all of this. Censorship is a very slippery slope. More to the point, it takes away my power and ability to control the content I want to be exposed to.
The defense of free speech / free market / free - whatever, usually isn't going to be tested by things everyone likes. What ends up on the frontlines of these battles as you sarcastically point out is potentially offensive speech / actions. This is why the ALCU defends all kinds of extremists, where the line between protections of their freedoms gets blurred because the people effected are unpopular.
Basically, I defend Apple putting baby-shaker being in the app store because I just want Apple to open the doors and let me pick and choose what I want.
*Applauds iPhone envy*
A thought-out, rational & well put point. I totally agree.
Now only if other people (including) wouldn't just immediately act on their initial knee-jerk reaction.
Thank you
How is apple dictating this at all? It tries to filter out what could be offensive, how in the world is that dictating?
As for your automated system for checking apps, how exactly do you make a system that runs and analyzes every type of app for content?
It doesn't take much thought to come to the conclusion that a baby-shaking app is not a good idea.
Do you think an app entitled "How to make a simple bomb that wil bring down a plane" would be a good idea? After all, there is no abusive imagery/violent activity shown in the app, just some instructions. Yeah, right, like someone will actaully use it. I mean, no one's ever doen THAT to a plane, right??
Perhaps a pedophilia app, where you have to . . . etc. Well, now that we're playing at killing babies, and all. Hey, pedophilia doesn't even include killing.
I'm not taking any sides here, just highlighting what happens when we open the door to these things.
And people think fart apps are objectionable . . .
Do you think an app entitled "How to make a simple bomb that wil bring down a plane" would be a good idea? After all, there is no abusive imagery/violent activity shown in the app, just some instructions. Yeah, right, like someone will actaully use it. I mean, no one's ever doen THAT to a plane, right??
Perhaps a pedophilia app, where you have to . . . etc. Well, now that we're playing at killing babies, and all. Hey, pedophilia doesn't even include killing.
I'm not taking any sides here, just highlighting what happens when we open the door to these things.
And people think fart apps are objectionable . . .
True story: In high school and college I loved the Suicidal Tendencies' song "Institutionalized." Early punk standard about how rules and authority suck, parents suck, and how no one "understands" youth. "All I wanted was a Pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me. Just a Pepsi." "Doesn't matter, I'll probably get hit by a car anyway." Now I'm 40 and I have to say that I find the protagonist in my former "anthem" highly annoying. I mean, grow up for God's sake.
Someone wrote an app about shaking babies. Shaking babies to silence them...by killing them. And you fault Apple for pulling it? Really? You see this as a free speech issue? Shaking babies? Are you a sociopath? Would you find it okay for Apple to allow an app that portrayed the holocaust as "fun?" Would you not have a problem with child pornography apps? Snuff apps? What if the "market" decided these apps were okay, would that make them acceptable? On a practical level, is it financially smart for Apple to allow these types of apps? Is it good for their brand and their image? You have Apple's answer to these questions. Are you smarter than Apple?
Really, grow up for God's sake.
Someone wrote an app about shaking babies. Shaking babies to silence them...by killing them. And you fault Apple for pulling it? Really? You see this as a free speech issue? Shaking babies? Are you a sociopath? Would you find it okay for Apple to allow an app that portrayed the holocaust as "fun?" Would you not have a problem with child pornography apps? Snuff apps? What if the "market" decided these apps were okay, would that make them acceptable? On a practical level, is it financially smart for Apple to allow these types of apps? Is it good for their brand and their image? You have Apple's answer to these questions. Are you smarter than Apple?
Really, grow up for God's sake.
You're stating the obvious. You SHOULD be preaching to the choir. But sadly, it seems you're not. It boggles the mind that this issue needs explaining. Thank you for providing clarity, but you shouldn't have to have done it in the first place.
I think what he was saying is that for some reason America has a very low tolerance for anything deemed offensive for some reason. Take a look at tv here, squeaky clean other than violence.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
The thing is that Apple approving or not approving an app for placement in its store, which is different than approving or not approving a product that works with the iPhone otherwise. If you wanted to make an argument about the legality of the closed loop model, that would be one argument. But as long as it's legal, I can see their concern. Imagine that software program in a box in an Apple retail store. It looks pretty distasteful. And Apple wouldn't be obligated to sell it.
So I guess the App can go underground for jailbroken phones...I'm not sure what clout they have since Apple approved the app; I don't know if they are free to change their minds at any time, that certainly does make it scary for a business entrepreneur who has very little recourse if their app is pulled.
So I guess the App can go underground for jailbroken phones...I'm not sure what clout they have since Apple approved the app; I don't know if they are free to change their minds at any time, that certainly does make it scary for a business entrepreneur who has very little recourse if their app is pulled.
Question... if you owned a marketplace, and someone came to you and asked if they could sell [insert the most offensive thing you can think of], would you allow it? Why or why not?
It's Apple's service, they get to choose. This isn't something on the scale of a government, this is just a company offering a service.
I'm against censorship too, but I believe Apple has a right to allow or not allow content based upon whatever their standards are. It's a whole vat of worms, but they opened it and now they're dealing with it in the only realistic way you could expect a company with a public image to do.
The more people you offend, the less popular your products become, the less profit you make. Then, face the wrath of the shareholders!
That's really a poor phraseology. The argument for wanting something like this pulled is not, "I don't like this, therefore no one else should see it either." If it were, your statement might have a point. But the real idea is that, you know, shaking babies is wrong, and therefore an app that encourages or makes light of this is something that reducing exposure to might be beneficial.
I also don't think we should have any simulated rape apps, or apps where you can own and beat slaves. To better explain why I think your reasoning fails, let's change your sentence to apply to something of a different context.
"If you don't like slavery, don't buy one."
I think your comments were well intentioned, but I stop there.
No one has a problem with iGod, you can kill and injure the island people, but its in cute animations so no one cares. Something tells me had this app been a baby Osama bin Laden thered be a different tune around here.
There is a difference between crimes / criminal acts, and playing a game that depicts them.
Where is your outrage for games like Payback in the App store? This is just GTA type game glamorizing car jacking, hit and runs, assault, etc. etc.
Simulated crimes while detestable already are in the appstore. Mafia apps, bombing apps, the one where you basically rub a virtual girl and all she can do is giggle (which I am sure all hot women would do if strange men touched them).
As for Hemingray's point that apple is not a free market but a business, I concede that as a seller I might want to wade into some form of censorship as to what I sold in my store. What I would not do is say that no one else could sell that which I might choose not to sell. The problem here is that apple is the only store in town for apps.
I think when it boils down to it, the problem is where and how you draw a line. Farting is not as offensive as baby killing. No one is saying that. The question is should some books be banned and which books? Should simulated violence be banned and if so what kind and where is the line?
For Apples sake, and if it was my company, I would draw the thinnest of lines. I would offer up net nanny style content filtering (search for offensive words, topics, imagery) and let people choose to turn it on or not. Let people search for what they want. Then if something comes out that is super offensive, push the developer to have to face the backlash, not Apple.
Where is your outrage for games like Payback in the App store? This is just GTA type game glamorizing car jacking, hit and runs, assault, etc. etc.
Simulated crimes while detestable already are in the appstore. Mafia apps, bombing apps, the one where you basically rub a virtual girl and all she can do is giggle (which I am sure all hot women would do if strange men touched them).
As for Hemingray's point that apple is not a free market but a business, I concede that as a seller I might want to wade into some form of censorship as to what I sold in my store. What I would not do is say that no one else could sell that which I might choose not to sell. The problem here is that apple is the only store in town for apps.
I think when it boils down to it, the problem is where and how you draw a line. Farting is not as offensive as baby killing. No one is saying that. The question is should some books be banned and which books? Should simulated violence be banned and if so what kind and where is the line?
For Apples sake, and if it was my company, I would draw the thinnest of lines. I would offer up net nanny style content filtering (search for offensive words, topics, imagery) and let people choose to turn it on or not. Let people search for what they want. Then if something comes out that is super offensive, push the developer to have to face the backlash, not Apple.
Apple is a commercial entity, not an elected official...
Apple does not have to be democratic about APP approval. The APP in question was apparently created by a sociopath or group thereof.
It would be socially irresponsible for Apple to continue to sell such a reprehensible product that INSTRUCTS the morons who buy it how to murder a human infant.
For all of you posters crying "Free Market," think about social responsibility and the implications of your own actions upon a society that has to survive together. Free Market is not a scientific principle, it's a philosophy about making money.
Just because there is a market for your dubious product DOES NOT mean you should sell it. There is a market for child prostitutes in southeast Asia. Does that mean people should allow it to thrive?
What's wrong with you people?
Apple does not have to be democratic about APP approval. The APP in question was apparently created by a sociopath or group thereof.
It would be socially irresponsible for Apple to continue to sell such a reprehensible product that INSTRUCTS the morons who buy it how to murder a human infant.
For all of you posters crying "Free Market," think about social responsibility and the implications of your own actions upon a society that has to survive together. Free Market is not a scientific principle, it's a philosophy about making money.
Just because there is a market for your dubious product DOES NOT mean you should sell it. There is a market for child prostitutes in southeast Asia. Does that mean people should allow it to thrive?
What's wrong with you people?