Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivankirigin | Hacker News Reader

They essentially said "ohh, we don't mind the 'swear' words, just the really bad ones"

Fuck that. It is exactly the same thing, but the lexicon has evolved.

That's exactly right. Mr Schiller's reply is one of the least intelligent things I have ever heard anyone say.

There's a brilliant episode in The Life of Brian that makes fun of people who are unable to take into account the purpose and context in which words are used:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm2BsjACkuI

I think a fundamental question is "Why does the content rating come with an age attached?" Because that's really what causes stigma.

In other words, if NinjaWords was simply required to put a warning on their app that says, "This dictionary can be used to reference strong language," I doubt anybody (parents, Apple or developers) would have a problem.

The issue is that various different types of content get munged together through some obscure function to form an "Age" rating, which appears to be the "Government Recommended Prudeness" level.

It would be more useful to parents AND developers if we could simply attach a badge warning specifically about content within each app ("This browser may be used to access 3rd party content including sexual, violent, or vulgar themes"). Let the parents decide for themselves how that translates to age.

I agree with that but someone who has parental controls enabled may not. That's why the feature exists. The "dirty words in dictionaries" battle has already been fought in schools and libraries and it seems Apple is taking the same route. Some words are OK, some aren't. It's not as though an NC-17 rating on the App Store really causes any problems for a developer unlike a movie getting an NC-17 rating which is a big deal still.

You know, I went to see Transformers last weekend, which is PG-13 and included a rich variety of swear words and sexual innuendo.

The problem is not so much that Apple is censoring NinjaWords, as that Apple is penalizing them for engaging in censorship, while approving and/or offering (via Safari etc.) apps which allow access to the exact same 'offensive' information. This seems to me to be an unfair restraint of trade.

School censoring and rating systems are both bullshit. They oppress minorities and creativity. A software platform has far less justification to follow a similar pattern.

The idea that children shouldn't see swear words is leading to a categorical error. The debate is about how much, for which there is no right answer, instead of if at all.

As a parent, let me put some authority behind it and say the parental control is the off switch. If parents aren't there to turn it off - guess what: your kids are already looking at donkey porn, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The whole issue is such a farce, where Apple is really looking to give the impression that it cares and controls the situation, when it doesn't. They make a web browser that can easily search for porn. Is there effectively a difference between that and an app where you can search for a dry definition of a dirty word?

There is a difference - the browser is far worse. And not restricted. And made by Apple itself.

I completely agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but to be fair, the iPhone's parental controls do allow you to lock down the browser.

I expect my kids to eventually outsmart anything I do to hide things from them, long before they are old enough to vote.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact that you can lock down Safari on the iPhone, in direct contradiction of your statement "The browser is far worse. And not restricted."

Again, I agree with you in pretty much everything else you're saying. I just think its stupid to pretend like Apple is evil for this particular alleged hypocrisy - "Oh noes, they let kids look at porn without restriction in Safari but ban my dirty word dictionary!" - when their real fuckups are already sufficiently bad.

Apple is doing the filtering in the app store. People do the filtering on the browser. That is an important difference.

No, it's not, at least not to the point you were originally making, which was that Apple has put in place a system of control for apps but not for their own browser - that's false.

Why are you hung up on this? I'm not saying "don't be pissed at Apple", I'm saying "don't be pissed at Apple for imaginary things".

I'm not hung up - I'm right. You do bad shit in your app, and apple doesn't let people get it. You do bad shit available in the browser, and apple leaves it up to you do not get it. It's the exact opposite policy.

If there were a parental control for the app store that blocked objectionable content, off by default, this whole issue would go away.

If there were a parental control for the app store that blocked objectionable content, off by default, this whole issue would go away.

Um, that's exactly how the parental controls for the app store work. Apple uses the rating system to determine what apps are considered objectionable, the parental controls block access based on those ratings, and access to everything is enabled by default.

I thought apps with objectionable content don't get in the app store at all. Is that not the case?

That's not the case anymore, since the introduction of parental controls in iPhone OS 3.0. That should have been more than clear from the article, Schiller and Gruber both emphasize precisely that point.

But won't locking down the browser mean that you can't access the bus schedule, or their online school books, or whatever other good things there might be on the internet? Sort of a blunt weapon, no? It's like saying that because your eyes may see bad stuff, we will force them to wear eye patches...

I wasn't saying that this is a good feature, or that I'm glad it exists, I'm just pointing out that it's there, and that it seems like a waste of time and energy to pretend that Apple's censoring dirty words while giving parents no way to prevent kids from looking at porn with Safari.

I agree with your main point, but how does school censoring oppress minorities?

"It's not as though an NC-17 rating on the App Store really causes any problems for a developer unlike a movie getting an NC-17 rating which is a big deal still."

I wonder about that.

I wrote the Nihongo app, which, like NinjaWords, kept getting rejected until I finally set the rating to 17+.

When it was finally in the AppStore, friends told me that an "are you sure, since this app has Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity and Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes"-type warning came up just before they hit "Buy".

I wonder how many people hesitated or declined to buy the app b/c of that.

That's troubling. I've been thinking that it's OK if the ratings are strict or inflated, as long as there's no stigma attached to a 17+ rating.

But a warning before you buy certainly stigmatizes 17+ apps. I bet lots of people hesitated.

Well for one thing, Apple does not let you give out promo codes for 17+ apps, which is a big handicap for promotion of your work.

Similarly, I wrote the Jishobot app and had to change its rating up to 17+. I'm calling bullshit on Phil Schiller's response. Am I allowed to say that?

As of July 26th, it looks likes promo codes have been allowed again for 17+ apps.

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/26/update-promo-codes-are-now-al...

Hey, look at that! Tried it and it works. Thanks for the correction.

How about commenting without cursing?
If you can't comment about the Ninjawords Dictionary without cursing then your opinion on Parental Controls is inherently flawed.
The Parental Controls aren't there for you. They are there for me. I don't want to fill my headspace with negativity.

Swearing is only negative because of your own perception. To a lot people they're just words, strong words, but not necessarily negative as you seem to imply.

Yes, exactly. Swearing is negative because of my perception. That doesn't make it correct or incorrect. And Apple is doing me a service when they rate those type of Apps as 17+.
It's not censorship. It's about letting the consumer know what they are actually purchasing.

Cue religious fundamentalist iPhone users demanding they be protected from seeing information about evolution or other heretical belief systems - the point being that these judgment calls are terribly subjective. Should other dictionaries (which allow one to look up swear words) also be rated 17+, in your view? Serious question.

I don't want to be protected. I want to be informed.

IMO, 17+ denotes nudity or graphic violence not swearing. So saying 17+ is providing most people a hint that it's got swearing silly. If they really care they should have a 13+ (swearing) category.

Did you read the article? It's an edictionary! That means you are only going to see curse words if you actually search for them. So what if you don't know what cunt or faggot mean (eg as a non native English speaker)? You shouldn't be able to find out? That's crazy.

Dude, parental controls are there for keeping words away from children. You are not the target audience, even if you like them.

It fills your headspace with negativity that a dictionary includes the definitions of curse words? Its not like they peppered the menus and help with curse words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com