

Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone App - TFrancis
http://lambdajive.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/isinglepayer-iphone-app-censored-by-apple/?preview=true&preview_id=29&preview_nonce=94ad9174dd

======
GHFigs
I don't understand the purpose of this post. The author seems to disagree with
the rejection, but more interested in promoting the rejection than actually
getting the application published.

Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is
"politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from
the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health
reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on
Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a
private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that _really_ the sort
of thing you want to have associated with your cause?

------
hyperbovine
Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing
around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to
express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app
store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care
(a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate
peacefully in front of your local courthouse.

~~~
andreyf
FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion
of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful,
sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as
determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography
from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged"
applications, as well.

So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically
charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline
applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I
agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as
upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being
"politically charged".

Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple
provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their
power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be
limited.

~~~
vlad
I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race,
ethnicity, or religion of the developers.

~~~
tjogin
It wouldn't, but not because of free speech laws, but because of anti-
discrimination laws.

~~~
andreyf
Would an application's political slant not be protected under discrimination
laws, as well?

------
credo
I'm puzzled by this rejection.

"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because
by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right
wouldn't have a place in the app store)

I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an
unintentional mistake)

~~~
pistoriusp
During the election another developer wrote an app that counted down the
number of days until Bush was out of office, it was called Freedom Time. It
was rejected and the developer emailed Steve Jobs.

He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic,
I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the
point?

Steve"

[http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-
bac...](http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/)

~~~
pqs
That would be valid if customers had to use the App! If it was compulsory.
But, people only use the Apps they want to, the ones they download! So, if you
don't like the counter, just don't download it.

There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.

~~~
GHFigs
_So, if you don't like the counter, just don't download it._

You cannot count on people behaving this way, _least of all_ when it comes to
politics.

 _There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness._

Broad rejection under the banner of "politically charged" is probably the most
sane solution for Apple. The more they permit, the greater the backlash over
any particular rejection, and the more their permission would be construed as
endorsement.

For instance, suppose a pro-life and pro-choice application are both approved
for the store, but one ( _it doesn't matter which_ ) is only approved with a
higher age limitation than the other due to content. Even if Apple's rating
approval were completely consistent with other applications, the discrepancy
between these two is practically guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. Multiply
that by every other axis of approval or rejection and every other political
issue in every country Apple runs a store.

~~~
pqs
What I cannot understand at all is why I'm able to install any kind of
software on my mackbook and why I can't do this on my iPhone. It's just
absurd.

------
allenbrunson
oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real
headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple."

i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the
original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.

~~~
jgilliam
I'm not following you. What is wrong with the content of the article?

~~~
allenbrunson
the app was not 'censored' by apple. they are free to approve or reject any
app they want, for any reason. the article posits that the author's views are
being supressed, and that's just ridiculously wrong. it's like news.yc
commenters having their comments [dead]ed for flaming, then claiming that they
are being 'censored'.

the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop
reading any article that talks like that.

~~~
tjogin
If it was rejected due to its "politically charged" content, what would be the
difference between that and censorship?

~~~
stingraycharles
Because Apple makes it very clear in their TOS that they don't want that. And
obviously, the iSinglePayer app is politically charged. The developer of the
app decided to develop it anyway, and now he's claiming he's being censored.

It's kind of silly, actually. People seem to think they have some fundamental
right to be approved into the AppStore, which is simply not the case.

~~~
tjogin
How does making something clear in a TOS not make this censorship?

Censorship, as defined by Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech
or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable,
harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations
as determined by a censor."

How is this not censorship on Apple's behalf? I'm not saying they're not _in
their right_ to censor the content on their AppStore, I'm just saying _it is_
censorship.

~~~
stingraycharles
Okay, according to that definition, you may be right. Ultimately, I think it's
up to a judge to decide; censorship is not as black and white.

Take Google for example. They automatically filter various type of sites from
their index (phishing, link farms, etc). According to the definition on
Wikipedia, that is censorship too: it's communicative material, which is
considered harmful by Google.

~~~
tjogin
Why would the definition of the word 'censorship' be up to a judge to decide?
And why would a judge be involved at all? It isn't illegal to censor
something.

The fact that this is censorship doesn't mean that Apple aren't in their right
to do so. They are, as much as I dislike it.

Voicing one's discontent with their policy is probably the only way we can
make them change it, though.

~~~
stingraycharles
Ok in that case, indeed, censorship can be applied. But to me, that means it
completely loses its value: in essence, it would be the same as "filtering",
which I don't think is the intent of the law.

~~~
tjogin
(For some reason I can't reply to your last post, so I reply here instead.)

No, censorship is not illegal. Freedom of speech protects your right to speak
without getting silenced or punished for it (with some limits, like hate
speech) by the government.

But your freedom of speech does not imply that you are free to express
anything in any _private_ arena. For instance, on this board we are not
allowed to use inflammatory language or basically be douches in any way. This
does not conflict with freedom of speech, because you are free to express your
inflammatory opinions _somewhere else_ , like on your own blog or in your own
kitchen.

Freedom of speech does _not_ give you the right to publicize anything on any
private platform anywhere (like the App Store).

~~~
stingraycharles
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, freedom of speech is violated by
censorship, but censorship doesn't always violate freedom of speech.

Guess my interpretation for the word always was wrong. I figured censorship
meant the act of limiting freedom of speech; you seem to define censorship as
any act of filtering.

Would you classify Google's filtering of web content as censorship ? If not,
how is that different from Apple filtering AppStore applications ?

------
zaidf
One day Apple will realize the feeling of suffocation going through most
iPhone developers.

