Steve Jobs and Porn

[D*I*S_Frontman]

OOOHH...What a cold and chilling precedent! He'll be burning virtual books next!

"Censorship" only occurs when a government limits free speech. Steve Jobs can never credibly be accused of censorship because Apple, Inc. is NOT a government. Whiners who call this "censorship" should vacation for a month or two in a nation that actually employs censorship and see what it's really like. Have a government official "question" you about the wording of a private email you sent to a friend while in country, or about a site you visited online one night--maybe even detain you or formally arrest you for it. Then you'll understand how many light years away this issue is from true censorship.

Jobs is an appliance salesman. If you don't like the safeguards he puts on his appliances, buy a Droid. Your "right" to have great porn apps on every device you own with a color screen has NOT been infringed upon. Jobs just wants no part of specialized apps that facilitate it, for many of the reasons already cited. Heck, you can use Safari. Jobs is BARELY limiting anything, really, except endorsing smut apps on his own store. He has a right to do that.

So long as Microsoft, Dell, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Motorola, Google, et. al. exist, Jobs does not enjoy a monopoly powerful enough to limit anyone's rights with regard to portable device content, and so long as Jobs does not have a nation-wide investigation apparatus/secret police willing and able to implement his restrictions on free speech upon a politically powerless population, he is not capable of censorship.

If this issue leaves you "concerned" about the closed nature of the Apple product/software line, you are pretty late to the party. Steve Jobs places his draconian stamp on his products--utility, design, concept, form factor, everything. If you like his vision, as I do, you just go along with it. If not, take a closer look at all of the "iPhone killers" we keep hearing about.

But for the love of Mike, stop with the "censorship" hyperbole. Stop pretending to be "concerned" about it. If you oppose it that strongly, vote with your wallet and buy a Droid. Have no part in Job's conspiracy to keep dedicated porn apps off of his devices.

BTW--if Steve Jobs wants to approve iPhone apps by placing app names on a dartboard and randomly tossing darts at it, choosing only the apps he hits, that's his prerogative. It might be very bad for business and tick off developers, but for all intents and purposes it's his company and he'll do what he thinks is in their best interests short and long term.

Nothing new here. These are the conditions you accept when you buy an Apple product. Don't like it? Shop the competition.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

It's not like there's Safari.

Yeah, but thanks to Steve hating flash as much as porn theres only about 2 porn sites you can access with Safari

Apple has never cared about the customers. They dont need to because they have hoards of blind fanboys that will buy anything they sell at high margins, so even if Apple lost everyone but the hardcore fans they would still be making money.

 

[robotmonkey]

The no porn thing is really just so apple can get some good pr. Or at least that's what I think it's all about.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Yeah, but thanks to Steve hating flash as much as porn theres only about 2 porn sites you can access with Safari

Except the iPhone can render most image formats and all internet friendly image formats. Google images is basically a porn site. Your argument has no legs.

 

[ejb190]

I think there may be a bigger issue here then just porn or no porn.

The article hints at the amount of pop-ups, viruses, data theft, and other malicious acts against users that is tied to porn and porn sites. Apple is protecting their reputation of a secure, safe platform, fairly or not, by restricting the exposure of their systems to a perceived hostile environment.

e.

 

[darkplanets]

lol.

If anyone thinks that customers have rights (besides certain lemon laws, etc based upon the point of sale), then they're out in left field. You do have a choice, and a right, to not buy the product. Again and again this gets stated. Is it so hard to understand? Your only right as a consumer is to buy what you want, and follow the conditions stated therein of that product. It's really not a difficult concept. If you want/like it, buy it and use it. If you don't want/like it, don't buy it. Their product = their ecosystem.

But I'm sure certain people still won't get it, and will continue to post the same drivel.

Besides, he never explicitly banned porn; Apple just wont sell it through the App store. That doesn't mean you can't access porn, just browse either via the web or by JB and their store. That's more options than Apple even has to provide.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Except the iPhone can render most image formats and all internet friendly image formats. Google images is basically a porn site. Your argument has no legs.

I was being facetious...


I'm actually on your side; I think people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones. If Steve doesnt want porn on his store then thats ok, but at least allow access to other stores. Wal-mart doesnt sell porn, but i can drive a few blocks over and buy it.
Perhaps i'm too used to the linux world where users get to do whatever they want whenever they want without a big corporation telling them what they are allowed to do with their own hardware.
If i bought an iPhone the first thing i would do is jailbreak it so i can do what i want with the hardware i own.

 

[chown33]

Yeah, but thanks to Steve hating flash as much as porn theres only about 2 porn sites you can access with Safari

What about all those other mobile devices where Flash is builtin and works flawlessly with porn sites? Why aren't the porn lovers of the world using those devices?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I was being facetious...


I'm actually on your side; I think people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones. If Steve doesnt want porn on his store then thats ok, but at least allow access to other stores. Wal-mart doesnt sell porn, but i can drive a few blocks over and buy it.
Perhaps i'm too used to the linux world where users get to do whatever they want whenever they want without a big corporation telling them what they are allowed to do with their own hardware.
If i bought an iPhone the first thing i would do is jailbreak it so i can do what i want with the hardware i own.

Hence the winking face... I really need to pay attention to emoticons.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Sarcasm and irony dont translate well over the internet. Someone at mozilla should make an extension for that.

 

[Consultant]

I disagree. Like many things about Apple, he is restricting freedom of choice.

So all public libraries are restricting freedom of choice?
Does Best Buy sell porn? Does HP sell porn at its store? Does Amazon sell porn? Etc.

You obviously have not used iPhone's HTML5 compliant browser.



And to the blind trolls, CNN: porn sites are early adopters of technology:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/23/porn.technology/index.html

 

[*LTD*]

I think there may be a bigger issue here then just porn or no porn.

The article hints at the amount of pop-ups, viruses, data theft, and other malicious acts against users that is tied to porn and porn sites. Apple is protecting their reputation of a secure, safe platform, fairly or not, by restricting the exposure of their systems to a perceived hostile environment.

e.

Good point.

 

[*LTD*]

I disagree. Like many things about Apple, he is restricting freedom of choice.

No one actually cares.

The moment SJ stops being unreasonable and "restrictive", is the moment Apple ceases to be relevant. Don't forget: if it weren't for Apple, we'd all be stuck with lame computers and phones. Even if you don't like Apple's behavior, you're benefiting from their innovations.

This whole "censorship" argument is baloney. it doesn't actually hold any water. Joe Consumer has stepped up and demonstrated what he wants: Apple gear.

This notion of "censorship" doesn't even factor into it. It's meaningless, and a complete waste of time when it comes to discussion.

The argument is bogus.

 

[Burnsey]

Freedom of choice hasn't gone anywhere, you are free to choose another product if you feel Apple's does not meet your "needs".

 

[Stella]

Americans are strange.

Sex is evil. Yet killing is good.

"Wardrobe malfunction" says it all. Americans are **** scared of the human body.

 

[catfish743]

Americans are strange.

Sex is evil. Yet killing is good.

"Wardrobe malfunction" says it all.

Unless they're "babies." "Others" are perfectly fine.

 

[yojitani]

Jobs answered, “You might care more about porn when you have kids.”

This made me laugh. I'm sure many fathers care quite deeply about porn.

 

[ravenvii]

Unless they're "babies." "Others" are perfectly fine.

You know what's gross?
A bathtub full of dead babies.
You know what's grosser than that?
There's one on the bottom that's still alive.
What's grosser than that?
He's eating his way out.
What's even grosser?
He made it.
And what's the most gross of all?
He's going back for seconds.

 

[dissembly]

Look, I don't care that much about Steve Jobs, or whether or not this counts as censorship, but there's a couple of really, really naive notions tumbling around that i just had to reply to:

"Censorship" only occurs when a government limits free speech. Steve Jobs can never credibly be accused of censorship because Apple, Inc. is NOT a government.

It's really, really disturbing that anybody in the world believes this.

There is nothing about the definition of censorship that requires a government to be involved. It's quite appropriate an accurate to accuse Google of censorship, rather than merely the Chinese government, for example. Or the Comic Books Code, as an example of censorship. Or the Hollywood Production Code. Or - for gawd's sake - the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration - known colloquially as the censors.

And surely you're familiar with the fact that large companies are quite capable of using their market power to censor (and the word is entirely justified and accurate) pop culture. Walmart is the prime example. Sure, a music act can just choose not to sell their stuff in Walmart's stores - and cut themselves out of a massive market. The effect is changes in the content and nature of peices of art to fit a moral justification (and yes, i'm aware of the fact that musicians are just out to make a buck as well, there's nothing pure in the world, blah bling blah - that doesn't change what it is).

Economic force has wholly tangible effects. In fact, it often controls legal/government force in the first place. Censorship as a result of economic force, rather than legal force, is still censorship. It's the same phenomenon, with the same effects.

Whiners who call this "censorship" should vacation for a month or two in a nation that actually employs censorship and see what it's really like. Have a government official "question" you about the wording of a private email you sent to a friend while in country, or about a site you visited online one night--maybe even detain you or formally arrest you for it. Then you'll understand how many light years away this issue is from true censorship.

Firstly, I get what you're trying to say - i.e. that this is pretty bland as censorship - but it disturbs me that an intelligent person thinks that this happens solely as a result of *foreign* nations policies, when you've pretty accurately described the role of the CIA in the 'Third World.' In any case, it's an argument about degree, which does not go to the root issue.

Secondly, you're not describing "censorship", you're describing a police state. (which covers a set of tactics that, again, are pushed by the US government; it's wrong to frame this as something that happens in some exotic alien state).

Censorship is actually a different phenomenon to what you describe - it's the way information or art is made innaccessible, or modified, for the general population, usually for the sake of certain special interests (e.g. the government, Walmart and Steve Jobs's "reputation", etc...). When you define it like this, you see how poor your original definition ("something what governments do") was.

Thirdly, having said that, the OP is probably wrong that this is an example of "censorship" strictly - it is just an example of a poor store-owner placing unnecessary and unwanted restrictions on what is available in his store. And it is wholly valid to complain about something like that anyway, whether or not you think he has "the right" (such sacred language! this is "hyperbole" just as much as the OP's comment was, surely) to do that.

So long as Microsoft, Dell, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Motorola, Google, et. al. exist, Jobs does not enjoy a monopoly powerful enough to limit anyone's rights with regard to portable device content

That is not true, unless you are proposing to pay people the cost of switching from Apple to some equivalent device to evade Jobs's "vision".

so long as Jobs does not have a nation-wide investigation apparatus/secret police willing and able to implement his restrictions on free speech upon a politically powerless population, he is not capable of censorship.

Again, like i said above, you really seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what "censorship" actually is.

If you oppose it that strongly, vote with your wallet and buy a Droid.

This sort of language (along with "Don't like it? Shop the competition") disturbs the heck out of me, almost as much as your misunderstanding of what censorship is. If you're using your wallet, you're not doing anything that vaguely resembles "voting."

Using your free speech to criticize Jobs's attitude is far more appropriate than pretending that using your wallet has something to do with democratically participating in a society. Why do these discussions always devolve toward the "Shut Up!" argument? I mean, ultimately, thats all that's being said.

BTW--if Steve Jobs wants to approve iPhone apps by placing app names on a dartboard and randomly tossing darts at it, choosing only the apps he hits, that's his prerogative.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the App Store was the only way to get an App - i may be wrong here.

It pretty much runs against the basic ethics of the way hardware and software are treated; Apple has made and marketed a peice of hardware that is basically an expensive lump of metal and plastic unless you download user-directed mods, and then placed artificial moralistic limits on what users could do to mod it (limits that have nothing to do with actually safeguarding anyone). In what twisted pseudo-libertarian fantasy utopia is that "his prerogative"? Rather than, at the least, a breach of basic hardware marketing ettiquette? I agree it may not be much more serious than that - but for god's sake, at least understand that people have the right and more-than-sufficient motive to complain about it!

Anyway, sorry to get political, but others went there first.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

There is nothing about the definition of censorship that requires a government to be involved. It's quite appropriate an accurate to accuse Google of censorship, rather than merely the Chinese government, for example. Or the Comic Books Code, as an example of censorship. Or the Hollywood Production Code. Or - for gawd's sake - the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration - known colloquially as the censors.

Well, I suppose those people are "censors" in a sense and are, in strictly an editorial way, "censoring" material, but when the word "censorship" is indignantly thrown around by spoiled tech gadget geeks, the implication is that Apple's restriction of certain products is on par, at least philosophically, with government censorship. That is a ridiculous equivocation.

And surely you're familiar with the fact that large companies are quite capable of using their market power to censor (and the word is entirely justified and accurate) pop culture. Walmart is the prime example. Sure, a music act can just choose not to sell their stuff in Walmart's stores - and cut themselves out of a massive market. The effect is changes in the content and nature of peices of art to fit a moral justification (and yes, i'm aware of the fact that musicians are just out to make a buck as well, there's nothing pure in the world, blah bling blah - that doesn't change what it is).

Walmart is choosing to select products to sell they as a company want to be associated with, which they have every right to do. Walmart does not exist for the benefit of musicians and has no obligation, moral or otherwise to stock any one artist's product. If an avant garde musician wants to sell his edgy new album, he may have to choose another distribution partner, and if that "pressure" to conform to Walmart's standards substantially changes his "art", that is a moral failing of the artist, not Walmart.

..but it disturbs me that an intelligent person thinks that this happens solely as a result of *foreign* nations policies, when you've pretty accurately described the role of the CIA in the 'Third World.'

There is a pretty big difference between intelligence gathering and censorship. But if you want to bang the CIA drum, you'll certainly pluck the heartstrings of many a conspiracy theorist leftist. Halliburton next?

Secondly, you're not describing "censorship", you're describing a police state. (which covers a set of tactics that, again, are pushed by the US government; it's wrong to frame this as something that happens in some exotic alien state).

It doesn't happen here. Aside from child porn and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, people in the US are generally not censored by the government.

Censorship is actually a different phenomenon to what you describe - it's the way information or art is made innaccessible, or modified, for the general population, usually for the sake of certain special interests (e.g. the government, Walmart and Steve Jobs's "reputation", etc...). When you define it like this, you see how poor your original definition ("something what governments do") was.

There is absolutely NO WAY "art" is made "inaccessible" by anything Steve Jobs does. The "modification" argument is weak--artists are 100% complicit in this "censorship" if they modify their "art" for commercial reasons.

My definition is not "poor". It is a different one than you use. Reasonable people differ on just how censorship should be defined. I think whining about restricting porn apps on ONE MANUFACTURER'S handheld device is a terrible overuse of the term.

Thirdly, having said that, the OP is probably wrong that this is an example of "censorship" strictly - it is just an example of a poor store-owner placing unnecessary and unwanted restrictions on what is available in his store.

We are certainly in agreement here.

And it is wholly valid to complain about something like that anyway, whether or not you think he has "the right" (such sacred language! this is "hyperbole" just as much as the OP's comment was, surely) to do that.

Oh, posters certainly have the "right" to whine like children when Uncle Steve won't give them exactly what they want.

That is not true, unless you are proposing to pay people the cost of switching from Apple to some equivalent device to evade Jobs's "vision".

People can pay for their own purchasing mistakes, thank you. It's called "responsibility." Before you drop several hundred dollars on a super-expensive phone with a contract, you'd better know whether or not it will run the apps you want it to. You'd better know how the app approval process works, and the level of Jobsian subjectivity employed. If you don't put forth due diligence, blame yourself when you can't use the device as you mistakenly thought you would be able to.

This sort of language (along with "Don't like it? Shop the competition") disturbs the heck out of me, almost as much as your misunderstanding of what censorship is. If you're using your wallet, you're not doing anything that vaguely resembles "voting."

I am sorry to hear that free market capitalism "scares the hell" out of you. And buying one product over another is very much like voting, thank you.

Using your free speech to criticize Jobs's attitude is far more appropriate than pretending that using your wallet has something to do with democratically participating in a society. Why do these discussions always devolve toward the "Shut Up!" argument? I mean, ultimately, thats all that's being said.

Yes. "Grow up and stop whining" is what I'm saying. But MR is tailor made for spoiled techies to endlessly complain about everything that isn't precisely to their liking with Apple products, so my exhortation will certainly fall on deaf ears.

In what twisted pseudo-libertarian fantasy utopia is that "his prerogative"?

In a free society, a person can make a product however he wants to, and sell it for whatever people will pay for it. If that makes the US a "pseudo-libertarian fantasy utopia", then great.

 

[paolo-]

No one actually cares.

The moment SJ stops being unreasonable and "restrictive", is the moment Apple ceases to be relevant. Don't forget: if it weren't for Apple, we'd all be stuck with lame computers and phones. Even if you don't like Apple's behavior, you're benefiting from their innovations.

No one actually cares?

So you are essentially saying that people buy into Apple because it is unreasonable and restrictive, somehow? I know I personally buy them because they usually work well and are well designed. Part of that comes restrictive, but I think for a lot of people iOS is a great platform with great products but feels restrained. On my mac, I get a great experience from things that are known to work but I can also mess in the terminal and program what ever I want. A lot of people are ranting because they are seeing great hardware and a great OS design being blatantly limited. Sad truth is Apple want to keep it dumb so anyone can just pick it up and use it easily. Noble, and great way to make money but it's kind of sad. The mac is easy to use yet gives you full power on the machine.

Apple is slowly adding things that we have had in the personal computer system for a while and it somehow feels like a grand achievement. Oooouh you can now run apps, oooouh, copy and paste... I know, iOS isn't about trying to recreate the experience of a full computer but that's the way things are shaping up (iWork for example), it will need stuff like say a file system .

I don't see the app store strictly as a bad thing, it does raise the quality and quantity of the apps and makes it easy to pay/download and install software. (mind you ubuntu and debian have been using a similar system for a while). But the fact that you need to pay to run 100$ code you made and make it available surely hampers work a lot and would surely explain why so many pointless apps cost money. Might also explain why there are essentially no open source projects.

 

[dissembly]

Walmart is choosing to select products to sell they as a company want to be associated with, which they have every right to do. Walmart does not exist for the benefit of musicians and has no obligation, moral or otherwise to stock any one artist's product.

Yes it does. What are you talking about? This runs against the basic concept of the marketplace, as it is has existed for thousands of years. Walmart's one and only reason for existing is for the benefit of suppliers and consumers. It has no justification beyond this role. It is not a person, with "rights & responsiblities", it is an institution that fills a specific role. So the "WalMart censorship" is both valid to discuss and valid to complain about.

There is absolutely NO WAY "art" is made "inaccessible" by anything Steve Jobs does.

Now i cannot see how you have managed to follow any of the postings you were replying to.

The "modification" argument is weak--artists are 100% complicit in this "censorship" if they modify their "art" for commercial reasons.

That doesn't stop it from being censorship. And the fact that it doesn't stop it from being censorship means that the argument isn't "weak".

My definition is not "poor". It is a different one than you use. Reasonable people differ on just how censorship should be defined.

No, it goes beyond that; your definition is a different one to 99% of english-speakers: You're getting mixed up between police state repression and censorship, because you link these two concepts together (understandably), because police states usually make use of censorship. But censorship does not always (or even most of them time) use police states.

People can pay for their own purchasing mistakes, thank you. It's called "responsibility." Before you drop several hundred dollars on a super-expensive phone with a contract, you'd better know whether or not it will run the apps you want it to. You'd better know how the app approval process works, and the level of Jobsian subjectivity employed. If you don't put forth due diligence, blame yourself when you can't use the device as you mistakenly thought you would be able to.

And again, on top of all that, you have every right to complain about it, to complain to the manufacturer, to complain to Steve Jobs, to complain among a community of like-minded people on the internet, and to feel put-off by it!

This is what I don't understand *at al* about your position - you're not challenging what these people have actually complained about, you're questioning the validity of making a complaint, and even the validity of being annoyed by the manufacturers decisions. That is my main objection to what you've said.

And buying one product over another is very much like voting, thank you.

No it isn't. "Voting", if it matters at all, has distinct features that separate it from "buying stuff". For starters, in an ideal situation, everyone can vote - not true for "buying one product over another". And voting gives you rational control over your community - not true for buying and selling, in which control is vested in those who own companies and have lots of money. The idea that buying has anything to do with democracy is ridiculously ignorant of what "democracy" is supposed to mean.

I am sorry to hear that free market capitalism "scares the hell" out of you. & In a free society, a person can make a product however he wants to, and sell it for whatever people will pay for it. If that makes the US a "pseudo-libertarian fantasy utopia", then great.

Rubbish: You don't even beleive that. If a person decided to make a product out of the boiled brains of toddlers, you would object. If a person decided to sell access to water for a $100,000 subscription fee, you would object. Personally, my main complaint with Apple is the massive use of sweatshop labour. This, along with all the murder and mayhem, would fall under the class of things that make a "pseudo-libertarian fantasy utopia" a pretty disgusting, reprehensible thing.

And it's this sort of thing - the murder, mayhem, general abuse of humanity - that gives me the best excuse in the world to say that free market capitalism "scares the hell out of me".

But more accurately, what i was saying was not (strictly) that "free market capitalism" scares the hell out of me, but that the ignorant conflation of "buying" with "voting", and the heated attack on the concept of anybody making a heated attack of Steve Jobs's little quirks, are what "scare the hell out of me" - because it implies that there is a person out there, likely of voting age, who takes this ignorance with them elsewhere in society.

 

[woosah]

Spin it however you want. Argue what is censorship and what isn't, what is porn and what is art, but the fact is, this country has grown so entitled as to think that we deserve to dictate what products are developed and sold by a corporation be it private or publicly traded.

If I develop and implement a new internet search engine, and no matter what you attempt to search for, the only result you get is a link to my business, that's my choice. Your choice, and it would be a good one, would be to not patronize my search engine or business, but by no means am I obligated to give you anything more than what I want to give you per censorship or consumer entitlement.

 

[Abstract]

I'd be totally against SJ if he actually banned access to all porn sites on their products. It's the internet, and I should be able to access porn and go at it hard.


I'm not against Apple not selling it on their online shop, or any apps that directly access it.



Sorry, but this is much ado about nothing.

 

[LethalWolfe]

So all public libraries are restricting freedom of choice?
Does Best Buy sell porn? Does Amazon sell porn? Etc.
[/url]

Amazon sells porn. Just sayin'...


Lethal