Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukeschlather | Hacker News Reader

This is not the first time that Apple has rejected an app on purely political grounds. This may be the first time they've removed something and offended liberal/libertarian sensibilities, but a couple clear examples from a while back:

http://mashable.com/2011/03/23/apple-removes-gay-cure/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/apple-manhattan-dec...

View on HN

There's also the "phone story" app that was intended to raise awareness of human rights abuses that go into manufacturing devices such as the iPhone itself.

http://phonestory.org/banned.html

"Phone Story was pulled from the iTunes App Store on Tuesday September 13 at 11.35am, only few hours after its official announcement."

And this illustrates exactly why I haven't taken most of the attacks on Apple seriously up to now.

Hatred an bigotry aren't "purely political". The fact that certain sick fucks leverage those sentiment for political gain doesn't change that. You can ban apps that are hateful and bigoted for that reason only, without it being a political statement.

This is very different from the drone strike app, which is not objectionable in any way if you remove the political dimension.

I was actually remarkably offended when they removed the former app. Exodus is wrong and ex-gay conversion violates APA guidelines, but that doesn't make the app inherently bigoted, which is a remarkably weighty term that I'd prefer leave reserved for people like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Exodus claims to 'provide support' for people who want to 'recover' from homosexuality. Predatory? Misleading? Sure. Immoral? I'd say so.

But unlike homophobes, I don't agree with censoring speech that I disagree with and forcing my beliefs on other people.

I'd much rather let the app stand, have it receive 1-star ratings, have alternate competing apps (ie, from pro-gay groups) come up in the search results, etc.

Why? Because I'm certain I'm right and that ex-gay conversion is wrong, and I'm certain that, if the truth and the lies are laid out side-by-side in the plain light of day, eventually, the truth will prove itself.

"Predatory? Misleading? Sure. Immoral? I'd say so.

But unlike homophobes, I don't agree with censoring speech that I disagree with and forcing my beliefs on other people."

Does this even follow? "Predatory" and "misleading" should be enough to remove the app in the first place -- you don't need to assume they removed it because they disagreed with its politics.

One man's "predatory and misleading" is another man's gospel truth. Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse.

"Putting the authority to decide who is right and wrong on these matters in the hands of a single, all-powerful arbiter is just begging for abuse."

For all of society yes but for one company's store, that's just how the free market works. Walmart like Apple and many other merchants decided they didn't want to sell porn in their store. If you're offended by this decision of theirs you are free to take your business elsewhere.

That argument is getting old. I can buy some things from Walmart, and the things they don't sell from some other store. In the mobile apps world this is not possible.

Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution, and that makes their behavior so worrying. And of course it has enboldened Microsoft to follow the same model, something they probably would have never attempted on their own.

I'm offended by that decision for the exact reason of the slippery slopes that such things invariably lead to as the original article clearly demonstrates.

I'm not taking my business elsewhere because they won't put porn in their store, I have already taken my business elsewhere because I KNEW beforehand that it would ultimately lead to censoring arbitrary stuff for all the wrong reasons.

Turns out I was right.

Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-...

Jobs responded to that case at D8 conference. He said it was a mistake ("We had a rule: you can't defame people. We thought it was sane to have such a rule, but the problem is that political cartoons, by definition, defame politicians. So, we made an exception for political cartoons") and they soon changed their guidelines to let the app in, but the developer never bothered to re-submit the app.

That app isn't defamatory though. Caricature isn't defamatory without associated symbolism or represented actions to make claims about the individual represented. Drawing a silly picture isn't enough, you would have to draw a picture of someone doing something negative that they do not do, in a way that implies to the viewer that this person really does this thing and that you are not just joking about it.

Well that's the problem eh, you can't do censorship without bumping into hypocrisy (be it on the left or the right side).

    UPDATE: NYT is reporting Mr. Fiore has been "encouraged" 
    by Apple to re-submit. So the lesson here? Win a 
    Pulitzer, get a 2nd chance at the App Store.

Cute. Also this part, so very clearly underlines the reason why so many people start screaming about slippery slopes as soon as censorship enters the picture (even though the article's author does not seem to realize this):

    Look Apple, I supported some of your bans in the past 
    -- like your ban on sexy junk apps -- but political 
    cartooning is *slightly* different.

First they came for the "sexy junk" apps, but I didn't speak out ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com