Apple says: If you want porn, get an Android

[Volourn]

"some teenager jerk watching boobies on his Iphone"

 

This scenario is just not likely to happen,. But, hey, I guess you live somewhere wwhere some teenage jerk shoves his nudy mag into yoru face, right? And, you promptly sue him for it, right>? LMAO

 

 

"So yeah, I dare anyone to watch porn in front of me. I'll sue the floor from under you and use the money to enact whatever you were watching."

 

The chances of you winning this lawsuit would likely be nearly nil unless you have a little kid with you that you can brainwash into lying to say they were tramatized and have cried uncontrollably for days. But, hey, go ahead and try it.

[Orogun01]

This scenario is just not likely to happen,. But, hey, I guess you live somewhere wwhere some teenage jerk shoves his nudy mag into yoru face, right? And, you promptly sue him for it, right>? LMAO

There is always someone like that, loud, annoying and has no common sense.

 

The chances of you winning this lawsuit would likely be nearly nil unless you have a little kid with you that you can brainwash into lying to say they were tramatized and have cried uncontrollably for days. But, hey, go ahead and try it.

Are you kidding?! I live on the States, half the country are Puritans and the other half are sinners. But the only half that causes outcries is the Puritan, so I already have public support and media coverage.

 

@Hurlshot: Moron's can't use laptops and DVD players. Plus, he would had to plan watching the porn beforehand. With a DVD player he needs the DVD (duh) and the Wifi in most public places sucks.

 

@Walsh: I truly envy you Brits. You are allowed to watch boobs on the newspaper, but I gotta ask: how are the women?

[Hurlshort]

@Hurlshot: Moron's can't use laptops and DVD players. Plus, he would had to plan watching the porn beforehand. With a DVD player he needs the DVD (duh) and the Wifi in most public places sucks.

 

I'm going to assume you are joking, because this argument has more holes than your average porno.

 

I think you are also missing the point that none of the censorship affects going onto an adult site and streaming videos, that can be done on any 3G phone. The only issue here is the censorship of apps on the Apple store.

[Walsingham]

@Walsh: I truly envy you Brits. You are allowed to watch boobs on the newspaper, but I gotta ask: how are the women?

 

Just look up The Sun and Page 3, when you're not at work, or on a train, obviously.

[Orogun01]

Ok, all joking and playing the Devil's Advocate aside. I think that they main reason for the defense of porn is because most of us are against censorship (I hope that's the main reason, if is not I won't ask) What Apple is doing is their perspective on things, they don't want porn on the Iphone. Maybe they don't have a right to censor Internet content; in this case pornographic. But they can regulate the apps sold at their store and if they don't want to carry adult content that's their choice.

As for them being so poignant as to act as a "morality police" I could see that as them growing mad with power. The questions here are, will they lose clients because of this? and if so, will they reform their views?

[Walsingham]

Ok, all joking and playing the Devil's Advocate aside. I think that they main reason for the defense of porn is because most of us are against censorship.

 

We were talking about this on Saturday, and we decided that in fact it's because all the porn apps are rubbish, and Apple wanted to publicise themselves cheaply to the moral set in the USA. We haven't seen any of the porn apps, but quite frankly porn in any dynamic computerised form is inevitably rubbish because it's composed by computer scientists.

[Gorth]

porn in any dynamic computerised form is inevitably rubbish because it's composed by computer scientists.

As it says in the Aeneid, "Beware of geeks bringing gifts"

[213374U]

Ok, all joking and playing the Devil's Advocate aside. I think that they main reason for the defense of porn is because most of us are against censorship (I hope that's the main reason, if is not I won't ask)

Um, well, yes. Censorship is bad and all, but people like their porn, too. It's not just a question of taking the high moral ground and proclaiming it's an attack on freedom... it's also a question of Apple cutting their customers off from what is certainly a wildly popular and very demanded portion of Internet content. I mean, if Apple said they weren't going to allow access to arXiv.org, how many people do you think would raise a stink about it?

 

 

As for them being so poignant as to act as a "morality police" I could see that as them growing mad with power. The questions here are, will they lose clients because of this? and if so, will they reform their views?

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from -- in one sentence you seem to defend Apple's legitimacy in choosing contents, but in the next you say you see them "growing mad with power"...? I think Wals was spot on earlier with his bookstore example. If you really need or want it so bad, there are alternatives. There's nothing to suggest that Apple hasn't considered this.

[Orogun01]

[um, well, yes. Censorship is bad and all, but people like their porn, too. It's not just a question of taking the high moral ground and proclaiming it's an attack on freedom... it's also a question of Apple cutting their customers off from what is certainly a wildly popular and very demanded portion of Internet content. I mean, if Apple said they weren't going to allow access to arXiv.org, how many people do you think would raise a stink about it?

You know, I don't like censorship because I lived in a dictatorship where ideology was kept under constant watch and dissents was close to social death or literal. So i'm a little biased on the subject, but now that you bring up: Why is that censorship is bad? I mean there are things that should be censored.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from -- in one sentence you seem to defend Apple's legitimacy in choosing contents, but in the next you say you see them "growing mad with power"...? I think Wals was spot on earlier with his bookstore example. If you really need or want it so bad, there are alternatives. There's nothing to suggest that Apple hasn't considered this.

In one sentence I believe that they have a right to control what goes through the app store and they have a vision of what they want the Iphone to be, but to go as far as "making a moral stance". What people do or don't is none of Apple's business and they should focus on their actual business.

[Pidesco]

[um, well, yes. Censorship is bad and all, but people like their porn, too. It's not just a question of taking the high moral ground and proclaiming it's an attack on freedom... it's also a question of Apple cutting their customers off from what is certainly a wildly popular and very demanded portion of Internet content. I mean, if Apple said they weren't going to allow access to arXiv.org, how many people do you think would raise a stink about it?

You know, I don't like censorship because I lived in a dictatorship where ideology was kept under constant watch and dissents was close to social death or literal. So i'm a little biased on the subject, but now that you bring up: Why is that censorship is bad? I mean there are things that should be censored.

 

 

ORLY?

[Walsingham]

I don't buy all this 'a tiny bit of censorship is censorship of everything' argument. I have nothing against the colour lime greennormally, but a 400 foot high column painted lime green would be something I'd oppose. Surely I can oppose the column and not advocate the extirpation of all lime green objects?

[Amentep]

This whole debate seems weird to me. But I guess I still haven't gotten up to speed on modern cell phones.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Amentep

[213374U]

So i'm a little biased on the subject, but now that you bring up: Why is that censorship is bad? I mean there are things that should be censored.

Because "censorship" usually carries a political overtone. And restricting free speech on political grounds is bad, what with universal human rights and all. Encroaching on free speech with a political agenda has been shown to lead invariably to generally undesirable results, so it's not a totally arbitrary rule. But then there's the censorship on moral grounds, and there the limits aren't quite so clear. Child porn is conceivably banned to protect children and by extension society as a whole. But outside of content that requires that people be harmed in its creation, your guess is as good as mine (provided that neither of us is a lawmaker, obviously). It's not possible to dismiss this sort of censorship out of hand, but I'm just thankful it's not my job to draw the lines.

 

So I guess censorship is, like so many other things, neither good nor bad... just necessary. And oh so easy to abuse.

 

 

In one sentence I believe that they have a right to control what goes through the app store and they have a vision of what they want the Iphone to be, but to go as far as "making a moral stance". What people do or don't is none of Apple's business and they should focus on their actual business.

But you said it yourself: they have a vision of what they want the iPhone to be; they are simply working to make it true. Let's not forget that Apple is a company. It's not invested of the same powers of the state and therefore it's not bound by the same rules. As long as they aren't breaking the law, I don't see why they shouldn't adopt a moralist stance and design their products accordingly. You are free to pay them no mind (and no money, hyuk hyuk). Edited April 26, 2010 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

Because "censorship" usually carries a political overtone. And restricting free speech on political grounds is bad, what with universal human rights and all. Encroaching on free speech with a political agenda has been shown to lead invariably to generally undesirable results, so it's not a totally arbitrary rule. But then there's the censorship on moral grounds, and there the limits aren't quite so clear. Child porn is conceivably banned to protect children and by extension society as a whole. But outside of content that requires that people be harmed in its creation, your guess is as good as mine (provided that neither of us is a lawmaker, obviously). It's not possible to dismiss this sort of censorship out of hand, but I'm just thankful it's not my job to draw the lines.

 

So I guess censorship is, like so many other things, neither good nor bad... just necessary. And oh so easy to abuse.

But morality isn't cut clear on most things, which is why people argue for porn since they don't see it as immoral. There is a wide array of what most normal people would call moral and not one view is more valid than the other.

But you said it yourself: they have a vision of what they want the iPhone to be; they are simply working to make it true. Let's not forget that Apple is a company. It's not invested of the same powers of the state and therefore it's not bound by the same rules. As long as they aren't breaking the law, I don't see why they shouldn't adopt a moralist stance and design their products accordingly. You are free to pay them no mind (and no money, hyuk hyuk).

They have a right to control their product yes, but not to impose their morality on the world. So the whole "morality police" aspect of the declaration is what bothers me. First of all they are not a qualified entity to decide what should and should not be censored; present case excluded since it was pornographic material. If this is a progressive symptom of a moral clean up, then I think I may buy an Android. They should just release the Imoral and focus on their next product.

[Walsingham]

I think you make a good point about whether we think it's immoral. At least so far I go.

 

Comparison point: Should we censor pigs in England?

[213374U]

But morality isn't cut clear on most things, which is why people argue for porn since they don't see it as immoral. There is a wide array of what most normal people would call moral and not one view is more valid than the other.

Which was my point. However, consensus plays a huge role in this and ultimately rules are made to reflect what the majority believe is moral (within reason).

 

 

They have a right to control their product yes, but not to impose their morality on the world. So the whole "morality police" aspect of the declaration is what bothers me. First of all they are not a qualified entity to decide what should and should not be censored; present case excluded since it was pornographic material.

They are as qualified as anyone else. They are not campaigning for a censorship on the Internet as a whole. They are not imposing their morality on anyone that doesn't wish them to, and even then, it's arguable that they aren't as it's a conscious decision on the part of the customer to purchase a product which restricts access to certain contents -- so actually, it's the customer that's making the call.

[Orogun01]

They are as qualified as anyone else. They are not campaigning for a censorship on the Internet as a whole. They are not imposing their morality on anyone that doesn't wish them to, and even then, it's arguable that they aren't as it's a conscious decision on the part of the customer to purchase a product which restricts access to certain contents -- so actually, it's the customer that's making the call.

Because they are qualified as anyone else they shouldn't meddle. They are not aggressive with their whole morality but like in this case there are often conflicts within ethics. A person fighting for the high moral ground has no power whatsoever, but when a company does it the consumer is summited to their moral reasoning within every product they buy or own.

My concern is that this censorship will go beyond pornography and into other, more important subjects. I mean, even search engines are biased why not Apple?

[Amentep]

I think you make a good point about whether we think it's immoral. At least so far I go.

 

Comparison point: Should we censor pigs in England?

 

I like the headline "Mandelson and Balls on Peppa Pig-gate"

[Walsingham]

I think I follow you, Orogun. If I may extend your point, the problem only really becomes serious when a commercial entity conducts covert censorship. Apple have at least been very clear about their commercial offerring. We are free to choose someone else.

[Orogun01]

I think I follow you, Orogun. If I may extend your point, the problem only really becomes serious when a commercial entity conducts covert censorship. Apple have at least been very clear about their commercial offerring. We are free to choose someone else.

True, but they are the best with this technology. I just don't wouldn't like to buy an Ipod, Iphone or Ipad that comes with strings attached.