where to draw the line of censorship

Tech —

Apple and App Store censorship: where to draw the line?

Apple seems to be of two minds when it comes to policing the App Store, merely in …

Apple has been criticized for having seemingly arbitrary rules for determining whether or not an app contains "objectionable content," and therefore gets rejected from the App Store. Recently, Apple rejected an e-volume for containing a couple instances of the f-discussion, prompting the author to ultimately remove the offending words to get his content into the App Shop.

Apple'south actions are a kind of censorship, and the company seems to be teetering on the edge a slippery gradient. Apple tree stopped rejecting "fart" apps like PullMyFinger and iFart and added Adult Swim's crude Amature Surgeon, but added a mature content warning that appears when someone clicks "Buy Now." Apple sells a plethora of music and movies via the iTunes Store, replete with sexual or violent content and foul language, but apparently, publishing a novel with a couple f-bombs isn't acceptable? Why should information technology make any deviation if the content comes in the class of a song, a movie, or an iPhone app?

The whole state of affairs has developers frustrated, equally it can be difficult to predict what might run afoul of Apple's reviewers. Farts are—now, at least—ok, just violent comics, available at many newsstands, are not. And iPhone users, similar myself, are frustrated that Apple has taken information technology upon itself to determine for me what is objectionable and what is not. Apple has a couple options when it comes to handling the trouble, each with pros and cons.

Amateur Surgeon contains profanity,
violence, sexual themes, and drug references.

Option 1: Practise aught

Apple tin just keep doing what it'south doing, drawing arbitrary lines between what is obscene and what is not. Things stay the same, and a novel with a few curse words gets rejected while Amateur Surgeon, iFart, or even iJiggles are simply a click and download away.

Pros: Some content that might be considered objectionable stays off the shop, while some gets through. Apple can say information technology's beingness active near decision-making obscene content—for those that care.

Cons: Developers and iPhone users both are left scratching their heads—developers because they may become an app rejected, and iPhone users because they may not get to access apps that they'd desire to buy. Apple also loses some of its potential revenue stream.

Option 2: Apple becomes a true arbiter of taste

Apple could really step up its filtering efforts, and truly prune some of the crap off the store. If Apple is truly concerned about the iPhone maintaining its position as the upper chaff of smartphones, why not make sure only the all-time software is available on the App Store?

iJiggles seems to have little
artistic value, simply I'll defend your
right to buy it.

Pros: No more sifting through countless fart and flashlight apps, or getting stuck paying for a overnice-looking merely otherwise crappy game.

Cons: Risk to developers becomes even college, perhaps leaving independent and smaller developers sitting on the sidelines. iPhone users have less to cull from. And clearly some people actually desire an app that let's them jiggle virtual breasts, as tasteless as information technology may be. And once more, Apple tree is severely limiting its revenue potential—though if all the apps are acme notch, prices might exist a trivial higher overall.

Option iii: Let the iPhone users decide for themselves

Apple already has a mechanism to label music and movies as having explicit content. Why not use the aforementioned mechanism for apps? Electric current parental controls would limit access for underage users, and adults tin use their own sense of judgment.

NWA's notorious "F#@1000 Tha Police" is
downloadable from the iTunes Shop,
as is other "objectionable content."

Pros: Developers are welcome to let their imaginations run wild. Authors are welcome to keep all the blue words in their e-books. Folks we trust to vote for president and defend our country volition be able to determine for themselves how obscene is too obscene, and parents can still limit access for their children as they see fit. Apple tree could exist earning revenue on apps that might potentially sell well but would otherwise run afoul of Apple'due south approval procedure.

Cons: If you call back there's a lot of crap now in the app store, imagine what would announced if there is essentially no filtering from Apple. Naturally, Apple would still make sure apps don't crash, aren't stealing users' data, and follow the SDK guidelines where applicative—but otherwise, anything goes.

How to draw the line?

Equally much as Option 2 is tempting, we'd prefer a world where Apple goes with Option 3. The company has already loosened its rules somewhat once information technology started allowing farting apps and the "rated mature" Amateur Surgeon. Why stop there? Steve Jobs said during the SDK announcement last March what the limits would be: porn, malicious apps, and apps that invade privacy. That seems a reasonable enough line to depict. Across that, Apple tree should let iPhone users decide for themselves.