Baby Shaker App Outrage - ABC Front Page Story

[Darth.Titan]

Apple Inc. pulled a 99-cent iPhone game called "Baby Shaker" from its iTunes store Wednesday after its premise — quiet a crying baby with a vigorous shake — prompted outrage.

As I understood the article, Apple is not playing at being the "Morality Police" as so many of you are suggesting. Here is how I interpreted what happened:

1. Apple approved the app.
2. Customers saw the app and were offended.
3. Enough complaints rolled in that Apple removed the app.

This is not about censorship or morality, it's about honoring the customers' wishes.
If you do not agree with Apple's decision, let them know.

All this philosophical debate belongs in PRSI...

 

[xbjllb]

Wow.. and to think they rejected my app

Based on the kids' game "Operation", where the point was to remove Steve Job's cancer without making the buzzer go off.

Would have sold a million to iPhoners.

Ah, for the good old days when Apple made computers...

 

[Spiritgreywolf]

It seems now they have just officially conceded liability for app content.

Indeed.

The thing is though I don't need them to play "taste" police. I don't need the dozens of you people whining about the app to play my "taste" police, either. If someone wants to pay 99 cents for a "shake the baby" application more power to them. There's a tasteless sucker born every minute - so if someone can get them to fork over cash for it? Good luck with that. All I can say is I wish I had their potential revenue stream.

*I* personally wouldn't want to buy an app like that - but I support the developers ability to sell if people want to buy it.

I'm the glad Apple polices content for things not to destroy my phone - but when it comes to "taste", they need to keep their taste buds in their own mouths and stop trying to french-kiss mine. Message to the Sheeple - "Stay out of my life, k?"

(Won't ever happen, but I'd figure i would say it anyway...)

 

[Doctor Q]

What would happen if a musical artist came out with a song about shaking toddlers to make them stop crying? Would Apple allow their new song in the iTunes Store?

 

[jbernie]

As I understood the article, Apple is not playing at being the "Morality Police" as so many of you are suggesting. Here is how I interpreted what happened:

1. Apple approved the app.
2. Customers saw the app and were offended.
3. Enough complaints rolled in that Apple removed the app.

This is not about censorship or morality, it's about honoring the customers' wishes.
If you do not agree with Apple's decision, let them know.

All this philosophical debate belongs in PRSI...

Actually... lets shorten the list to:
1) Apple was getting bad mouthed in the press so they removed it

Thousands of complaints could be submitted to Apple directly but we in the general public have no way to know this, at least not officially, but get it in the media and actions happen so much quicker.

This isn't just an Apple thing, how many companies don't seem to be able to do something until their name is getting rubbed in the mud with bad press?

 

[mikeinternet]

What a sickening post.

Didn't mean to offend you.

I just think that games and real life are different things. For example, how about all the games out there that are based on shooting each other?

 

[mikeinternet]

I'd be very curious to see how a poll on this would go.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

I'm holding out for the "kick the baby" app.

 

[djdole]

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.

Don't delude yourself.
Yes shaking babies is wrong. No one is seriously arguing for shaking REAL babies.
BUT
Shaking an iPhone with a picture of a baby & annoying sound-effect != Shaking a baby.

And the idea of reducing exposure as being beneficial is a flawed concept.
Putting wild dingos behind the wheels of gas powered bomb & missile equipped cars and setting them free to rampage the world's highways would also be a bad thing.
Hell, I'd argue it'd be worse than shaking a baby, but no one is jumping to support Apple banning the Crash Nitro Kart iPhone app.
Additionally, Augusta Gein had the same idea to reduce exposure of her perceived evil to her children, and we all know that Little Edward turned out just fiiiiinnnnneeee.
How a child turns out has LESS to do with what they do for fun but MORE to do with how the parents/guardians raise them.
(Parent's should be deciding what content their children view, and not leaving it to corporations.)

As for your 'slavery' reasoning example, that too is flawed.
iPhone App != immoral practice.
Try again, but this time pick an object (not an abstract concept) that doesn't at all infringe upon the life or liberties of another individual.
Cottage Cheese? Plutonium? Pornography? Scientology propoganda? The bible? Tofu?

Censoring this app just because you are offended by it is NO DIFFERENT than censoring this:

 

[djdole]

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?

What's wrong with us?
We understand that an iPhone is not a baby.
We understand that the sale of an APPLICATION about shaking babies isn't the sale of actual babies to shake.
We understand that the application does not infringe upon anyone's life or liberties, but this censorship does.

Though these concepts seem to have slipped past others apple:, effilc etc). *sigh*

//Not a free-speech hippi. Just don't like the idea of Apple deciding what's appropriate for me as an adult or what's appropriate for my children. It's not their place and (by that being their reasoning) they've stepped out of line.

 

[rKunda]

As for your 'slavery' reasoning example, that too is flawed.
iPhone App != immoral practice.
Try again, but this time pick an object (not an abstract concept) that doesn't at all infringe upon the life or liberties of another individual.

What are you talking about? Making an app simulating rape or slave beating or butchering Nazis wouldn't infringe upon anyone's life or liberties, directly, but I have a hard time thinking we'd see this same outrage if iHolocaust was rejected.

Really, other than scale, I don't see a difference in the comparison of app to real life. Sure, app = no one is harmed, while real life has consequences, but if both rape, genocide, slavery and shaking babies to death all result in a victim, just why is shaking a newborn so comical that it should be permitted?

 

[rKunda]

What's wrong with us?
We understand that an iPhone is not a baby.
We understand that the sale of an APPLICATION about shaking babies isn't the sale of actual babies to shake.
We understand that the application does not infringe upon anyone's life or liberties, but this censorship does.

Though these concepts seem to have slipped past others apple:, effilc etc). *sigh*

//Not a free-speech hippi. Just don't like the idea of Apple deciding what's appropriate for me as an adult or what's appropriate for my children. It's not their place and (by that being their reasoning) they've stepped out of line.

You first statement is what's known as a straw man fallacy. I see not one post of someone saying that this app actually hurts a baby. So your comment about understanding the iPhone is not a baby is literally just noise, refuting no one.

Second, let's talk censorship. Free speech, specifically as mentioned in the US applies to GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATION, not private institutions.

Apple need not allow any app, baby shaking, porn or whatever else. Just the same, your employer likely prohibits/censors your ability to watch porn.. or shake babies at work. Your life isn't being infringed upon. But your mind is being squandered.

 

[theolympix]

iGirl, She Obeys

Sort of regardless to the baby shaker app, which is obviously something they dont want to be selling on the app store is the app iGirl.
This app used to be called iGirl-She Obeys. Every time I saw the title of this app in the app store it stuck in my mind like a thorn and I would think about it long after logging out. In the game I understand you control and manipulate a 3d rendering of a woman, and it's kind of a PG13 level of obvious sexism. I really don't think there is anything wrong with this game being availible to the public. Users should be free to decide their content. But I couldn't help but be exposed to the title, which I found offensive and I think conveyed a more explicitly sexist message than the game play itself.
Anyway I wrote Apple and said something like
"The title of this game re enforces a dominance/ obedience paradigm of sexuality, which taken to it's broadest implication endorses rape. If Apple does not want this implication to be associated with content on the App Store, I think the name of the app should be changed." blah blah blah ..."To whoever reads this email first; please forward this immediatly to a supervisor"...

Within a week the app lost the -She Obeys, and is now simply iGirl. I was very impressed. I think absolutely Apple has to consider the ethical positions of the content they have on the store front and moderate the content that is intentionally rude or offensive. If the app is clearly offensive without consenting to using it, then there is a huge problem. So if the user wants and agrees to the content they can expose themselves to whatever they want. I think eventually the app store will need a rating system and proper content warnings, and I think the store front (the first frames of the menu) need to be violence and offense neutral. If the app Baby Shaker were to be called Baby Rocker, or Image Shaker, there would be no issue.

 

[goingblue]

Couldn't tell you but Apple's rejected our geotagging app 3 times in a row now. http://blog.return7.com/a-bit-ridiculousplacetagger-rejected-for-3rd-time It just goes to show you that the review system is messed up. They should just remove it entirely and put a "mark as offensive" button up..

Edit: it is what it is. :\

They don't tell you at all why it was rejected? When they reject it?

 

[goingblue]

As I understood the article, Apple is not playing at being the "Morality Police" as so many of you are suggesting. Here is how I interpreted what happened:

1. Apple approved the app.
2. Customers saw the app and were offended.
3. Enough complaints rolled in that Apple removed the app.

This is not about censorship or morality, it's about honoring the customers' wishes.
If you do not agree with Apple's decision, let them know.

All this philosophical debate belongs in PRSI...

Apple is just fine on this one. Direct the hostility at the scum of the earth that actually thought the app was a funny idea.

 

[rburly]

Even Chimpanzees in the wild have a higher value on life than this.

WRONG. Chimpanzees are as violent as humans. They plan attacks on other chimpanzees and are even cannibalistic.

Humans are the only sentient species on this planet capable of doing good by decision.

Patently wrong in many ways.

 

[skunk]

Humans are the only sentient species on this planet capable of doing good by decision.

Nonsense. There is plenty of altruistic behaviour in the wild.

 

[macgruder]

Nonsense. There is plenty of altruistic behaviour in the wild.

Really. I think the point is that whether this is knowingly altruistic. Much ( probably all) animal behavior that appears to be altruistic is actually not altruistic at all but a particular gene behaving in its own self interest. (An animal that sacrifices itself for its siblings might appear to be acting altruistically but is in fact acting the opposite - by sacrificing itself, more of its genes live on in the siblings that now live on). If it acts apparently truly 'altruistically', then it's probably a case of the animal making a mistake - and we know what happens to animals that make mistakes: they die.

Yeah, it was a bad app - but ironically it has done more to draw attention to the issue of shaking babies. Something that many people don't know about - perhaps this was Apple's plan all along

 

[skunk]

Really. I think the point is that whether this is knowingly altruistic. Much ( probably all) animal behavior that appears to be altruistic is actually not altruistic at all but a particular gene behaving in its own self interest.

If you can say this about other animals, you can say it about humans.

 

[stuckwithme247]

Man, I wanted to shake a virtual baby... I don't know what to do now... perhaps I'll just have to use a real one

 

[DeathChill]

Man, I wanted to shake a virtual baby... I don't know what to do now... perhaps I'll just have to use a real one

But without the app you won't have the experience to pull it off and you'll look like an amateur!

 

[xbjllb]

Bottom line: Child Abuse isn't funny or a game

Kids have been killed from this. Or worse yet, turned into lifelong vegetables.

It's not funny. Censorship is not the issue; humanity, or rather, the utter lack of it, is.

 

[Aaleck]

If it offends people, they don't wanna risk it, I bet

 

[effilc]

WRONG. Chimpanzees are as violent as humans. They plan attacks on other chimpanzees and are even cannibalistic.



Patently wrong in many ways.

---------------------------------
My apologies...

What I meant to say was:

Humans are the only sapient species on this planet capable of doing good BY DECISION.

"Doing good" is not the same as altruism. Altruism implies simply any selfless act. Doing good transports that idea into a strictly human context. Animals can neither do good, nor can they do evil because they are not bound by ethics or morality--they simply ARE. Good and evil only exist within the context of human perception.
_______________

With regard to your comment about Chimps:

You're correct about Chimpanzee behavior. Just as humans, Chimps war with each other and sometimes cannibalize each other.

However,

Chimps do not entertain themselves by creating games for the iPhone that mimic murdering infant chimpanzees. That is why I assume Chimpanzees value life more than some people in U.S. culture.

By the way... the two sentences you took out of context to critique belonged to a greater group of ideas that would have conveyed deeper meaning. You really should try to process multiple ideas in a larger context. It may help you comprehend reality more clearly. As well, I think your single sentence fragment answers are insufficient to convey your own ideas with any depth.

 

[effilc]

What's wrong with us?
We understand that an iPhone is not a baby.
We understand that the sale of an APPLICATION about shaking babies isn't the sale of actual babies to shake.
We understand that the application does not infringe upon anyone's life or liberties, but this censorship does.

Though these concepts seem to have slipped past others apple:, effilc etc). *sigh*

//Not a free-speech hippi. Just don't like the idea of Apple deciding what's appropriate for me as an adult or what's appropriate for my children. It's not their place and (by that being their reasoning) they've stepped out of line.

Empathy with others of our species is an important part of what makes us human and differentiates us from other animal species. People like yourself should strive to balance your ceaseless hunger for antisocial, self-destructive consumerism with a little humanity. (For all we know, we are one of a kind and can't really live anywhere else but earth.)

Freedom to buy, experience, do anything you damn-well please is not the pinnacle of intelligence. It is hardly sustainable for long. People who bought sub-prime mortgages enjoyed that "freedom" for a small time. However, without knowing the impacts of their actions contributed a great deal to the present economic hiccup. So, just because you CAN buy something, doesn't mean you should. --an idea that is completely lost upon non-complex thinkers.