Man, it's a joke and it's not to be taken seriously. Do people really not understand the distinction between a game and reality? Should we ban FPS' because they use guns and display violence?
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
You can say that, others can't. Apple's protecting its business by being apologetic. Apple frankly might not care about babies or shaking them; they're doing what makes the most business sense for a young and highly visible platform with few viable contenders.
Re: FPS games, it seems as if those are generally pretty accepted, at least in the United States. They're violent, but they've gained foothold in PC and console gaming. Some people, like Jack Thompson, are really loud when it comes to decrying them. Most others aren't.
The same can't be said about the actual content of the baby shaking app: Apple deemed it sensitive enough that it would rather not deal with potential fallout, considering they're already managing it and the app isn't even in the store anymore.
Re: FPS games, it seems as if those are generally pretty accepted, at least in the United States. They're violent, but they've gained foothold in PC and console gaming. Some people, like Jack Thompson, are really loud when it comes to decrying them. Most others aren't.
The same can't be said about the actual content of the baby shaking app: Apple deemed it sensitive enough that it would rather not deal with potential fallout, considering they're already managing it and the app isn't even in the store anymore.
Its simple. Its apple's store, they can sell what they want.
If you ran a Vegetarian grocery store you would not be happy if forced to sell
my dead cows.
If you want your baby shaker app that bad write it for the storm.
If you ran a Vegetarian grocery store you would not be happy if forced to sell
my dead cows.
If you want your baby shaker app that bad write it for the storm.
Select a hypothetical response and avoid the reality of the situation!
- This is a free market. I'd like to be able to decide what apps are offensive to me [and by extension and reason, what apps are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually Apple's!]
- It's just a joke, man! Mellow out! [I'd like to be able to decide what apps are offensive to me and by extension and reason, what apps are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually Apple's!]
- Right on! No beef in the vegetarian grocery! [I'd like to be able to decide what food products are offensive to me and by extension and reason, what food products are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually yours!]
- This is a free market. I'd like to be able to decide what apps are offensive to me [and by extension and reason, what apps are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually Apple's!]
- It's just a joke, man! Mellow out! [I'd like to be able to decide what apps are offensive to me and by extension and reason, what apps are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually Apple's!]
- Right on! No beef in the vegetarian grocery! [I'd like to be able to decide what food products are offensive to me and by extension and reason, what food products are offensive to everyone else, because I'd like to believe that it's my store and not actually yours!]
What's worse? The don't shake a baby app or the fact that dontshakeababy.com exists because people actually have to be told not to shake a baby. I personally don't need dontstickanoliveforkinyoureye.com to know not to do it, it's kinda sad actually.[/QUOTE]
Still, there are always idiots going to jail for having shaken their infant because it was crying in the middle of the night. Have you seen a shaken baby syndrome kid? As a physician having seen head MRI's of shaken babies (and as a parent) it always again makes me deeply sad. And applications like these are really not helping, they are neglecting the problem and giving a false impression - its a game, so not bad. For the same reason there should not be (and hopefully are no) shootyourparents or a Highschoolcarnage applications. Coming up with the idea of such a game not knowing of the syndrome shows complete ignorance and stupidity, knowing of the syndrome and STILL making the game is just unbelievable and evil.
Still, there are always idiots going to jail for having shaken their infant because it was crying in the middle of the night. Have you seen a shaken baby syndrome kid? As a physician having seen head MRI's of shaken babies (and as a parent) it always again makes me deeply sad. And applications like these are really not helping, they are neglecting the problem and giving a false impression - its a game, so not bad. For the same reason there should not be (and hopefully are no) shootyourparents or a Highschoolcarnage applications. Coming up with the idea of such a game not knowing of the syndrome shows complete ignorance and stupidity, knowing of the syndrome and STILL making the game is just unbelievable and evil.
It's all deeply sad if you're someone who has three quarters of an ounce of humanity, but unfortunately, some have less. Also, lots of people cope with reality via humor.
It's simple, though: Apple, as a business, has a substantial reason to not ruffle the feathers of a decently sized user base. Whether everyone involved found the app to be a knee-slapper or in poor taste doesn't matter. PR had to deal with a select occurrence to avoid further damage, and the spin offered (it's spin whether you find it in line with your morals or not) reveals the perceived economic self-interest of the company as determined by whoever made the official call to yank the app.
It's simple, though: Apple, as a business, has a substantial reason to not ruffle the feathers of a decently sized user base. Whether everyone involved found the app to be a knee-slapper or in poor taste doesn't matter. PR had to deal with a select occurrence to avoid further damage, and the spin offered (it's spin whether you find it in line with your morals or not) reveals the perceived economic self-interest of the company as determined by whoever made the official call to yank the app.
Great argument! Don't like slavery, don't own one!
Wait, no.
Would you apply your thinking to a rape, holocaust or child molestation app?
Both of your arguments are uniquely irritating!
But really, it wasn't a "rape, holocaust or child molestation app." Let's cross that bridge if and when we get to it. This slippery slope stuff is BS.
But really, it wasn't a "rape, holocaust or child molestation app." Let's cross that bridge if and when we get to it. This slippery slope stuff is BS.
+1. I did a triple palm face, coupled with a several head shake after reading the article. Not because of the outraged out cry; but because of the thought that someone actually paid good money for an app like this.
The shoe toss game sounds fun though, especially after enduring an eight year reign of error.
Because that's the puritan ethic, do everything and anything under the table, but keep a clean image...great ethics by the way...but there you have it...
How can you seriously compare a joke iPhone app to rape and slavery? That's stupid.
Are you intentionally missing my point or can you really not grasp it? I am taking your reasoning about a particular issue and asking you that, if your reasoning is so good, would it not work to defend other potential apps, like those listed. The point is not equating any particular with another. I'm looking at your reasoning, not the moral equivalence or rape and baby shaking.
But I suppose it's lost on you.
PowerFullMac beat me to the punch.
I understood your question, I just think it's irrelevant and that it reads like those "SLIPPERY SLOPE" straw men that people contrive when they want to disagree with government or something.
rKunda, even if we were comparing apples to apples and we had here a slavery app instead of a baby shaking app, your analogue wouldn't make a lot of sense. I'd hope through reason you can see the difference between actually depriving someone of their free will and an app that depicts it on a phone.
It'd be great if people could simply lighten up, but given that they won't because of pretty ingrained cultural ideas of acceptable vs. not, Apple will continue to run the business as would any driver of a vehicle designed to earn profit. They won't pretend to be the gatekeepers of morality and they'll respond to slips and problems as they have: to keep what they perceive the largest number of their users happy and buying, and not drive away those who may've bought before.
I understood your question, I just think it's irrelevant and that it reads like those "SLIPPERY SLOPE" straw men that people contrive when they want to disagree with government or something.
rKunda, even if we were comparing apples to apples and we had here a slavery app instead of a baby shaking app, your analogue wouldn't make a lot of sense. I'd hope through reason you can see the difference between actually depriving someone of their free will and an app that depicts it on a phone.
It'd be great if people could simply lighten up, but given that they won't because of pretty ingrained cultural ideas of acceptable vs. not, Apple will continue to run the business as would any driver of a vehicle designed to earn profit. They won't pretend to be the gatekeepers of morality and they'll respond to slips and problems as they have: to keep what they perceive the largest number of their users happy and buying, and not drive away those who may've bought before.
You said "Great argument! Don't like slavery, don't own one!", which reads like you were weaving some sort of moral equivalency into your question and expecting to shut down PowerFullMac's reasoning. He's not missing the point, he just doesn't agree that your example applies. My point is that despite all that, it's not likely the iTunes Store would ever be open to material that could affect Apple's image and thus their profitability.
So I guess you're in support for banning FPSs and GTA then?
Like someone else already said, doing something in a game dosent make you do it in real life.
Hold on, answer my question and I'll answer yours. If your last statement is true, answer me this... I ask again.
Do you think an app like iHolocaust or iRape should be allowed? Sure it's offensive, but "doing something in a game dosent make you do it in real life."
Are you actually trying to compare shaking a baby EVEN IN REAL LIFE to holocaust or rape?
also, I wouldn't mind an app called either. I would certainly flag it as bad taste and wouldn't buy it but I wouldn't go as far as banning such apps or TELLING people what to or not to do.
Obviously those are a lot worse and not humorous and I don't agree with them for that reason but tbh if they where put up as 18 rated or whatever then fine.
Fair enough. I strongly disagree, but at least I understand your position.
Though, I don't see how either of those are less funny than shaking a baby to death.
Oh well. Arguing on forums never gets anywhere. Without the inflection of voice or tone things often and quickly devolve into mean spirited rants.
I personally don't see the humour either but clearly some people do so it should be allowed, even if they make it 18 rated or put a warning on it.
Like you said though, arguing on forums never gets you anywhere.
Some deeper questions might be:
Does anyone understand the short-term/long-term impacts and implications of our actions (like distributing a video game that advocates murder as a solution to a crying infant)?
What kind of impact would the APP in question have upon ALL of the people it will ever influence? Could we even know this?
I think intelligent people should try to account for as many impacts as possible (think: global climate change).
One could argue the same point about video games like GTA. Do we really comprehend the far-reaching impacts of entertainment that suggests wanton violence as a solution to minor irritations in life (or for personal gain)?
Ideas are dangerous sometimes, and not everyone is equally equipped to make non-violent decisions.
It does not matter if the APP was intended as dark humor. An eight-year-old watching the youtube video suddenly has a new idea that he might never have come to on his own, "shake an infant to stop its crying."
Even Chimpanzees in the wild have a higher value on life than this.
I'm not saying violence=solution video games CAUSE violent behavior. That's too simplistic.
-------------
I'm saying violence=solution video games promote that idea, and in the promotion when widespread WILL influence someone incapable of discerning whether it is right or wrong. If you look at it this way, violence=solution video games are socially irresponsible. "Dark Humor" or not, it is the underlying idea that affects impressionable minds. (Why do you think religious fanatics are so interested in indoctrinating children?)
-------------
In the U.S. we feel entitled to as much freedom of choice as possible. With any freedom comes responsibility. Just because it makes a buck, doesn't make it right. And just because it seems right at present, doesn't mean it will be beneficial in the long run.
Each of us has to make a value judgement in cases like this:
Is a five-second chuckle at a twisted joke worth the possible impacts this APP may have upon impressionable minds?
For most people posting on this thread, I would say you are unable to empathize with other humans because you would rather have the five-second chuckle. I'm sorry your lives are so miserable, and people are so cruel to you that you need your chuckle to feel better.
Humans are the only sentient species on this planet capable of doing good by decision. This APP was a poor use of someone's limited lifespan.
Does anyone understand the short-term/long-term impacts and implications of our actions (like distributing a video game that advocates murder as a solution to a crying infant)?
What kind of impact would the APP in question have upon ALL of the people it will ever influence? Could we even know this?
I think intelligent people should try to account for as many impacts as possible (think: global climate change).
One could argue the same point about video games like GTA. Do we really comprehend the far-reaching impacts of entertainment that suggests wanton violence as a solution to minor irritations in life (or for personal gain)?
Ideas are dangerous sometimes, and not everyone is equally equipped to make non-violent decisions.
It does not matter if the APP was intended as dark humor. An eight-year-old watching the youtube video suddenly has a new idea that he might never have come to on his own, "shake an infant to stop its crying."
Even Chimpanzees in the wild have a higher value on life than this.
I'm not saying violence=solution video games CAUSE violent behavior. That's too simplistic.
-------------
I'm saying violence=solution video games promote that idea, and in the promotion when widespread WILL influence someone incapable of discerning whether it is right or wrong. If you look at it this way, violence=solution video games are socially irresponsible. "Dark Humor" or not, it is the underlying idea that affects impressionable minds. (Why do you think religious fanatics are so interested in indoctrinating children?)
-------------
In the U.S. we feel entitled to as much freedom of choice as possible. With any freedom comes responsibility. Just because it makes a buck, doesn't make it right. And just because it seems right at present, doesn't mean it will be beneficial in the long run.
Each of us has to make a value judgement in cases like this:
Is a five-second chuckle at a twisted joke worth the possible impacts this APP may have upon impressionable minds?
For most people posting on this thread, I would say you are unable to empathize with other humans because you would rather have the five-second chuckle. I'm sorry your lives are so miserable, and people are so cruel to you that you need your chuckle to feel better.
Humans are the only sentient species on this planet capable of doing good by decision. This APP was a poor use of someone's limited lifespan.