It's nice that Schiller took the time to respond, but his letter doesn't make them look any better. They're still acting like useless self-appointed meddling busybodies with rigor mortis of the anal sphincter. I can accept them setting standards for hardware and software quality, but when they start imposing their standards on the flow of information, services (Google Voice) and ideas, they've lost me forever.
You won't be missed. There are far more potential customers who care about "protecting" their children from various kinds of content. They constitute a market that Apple wants to access, and the way to do that is to provide mechanisms for filtering information on their behalf.
If you're fundamentally opposed to doing business with companies that restrict the flow of information in order to access wider markets, you're going to have to stop using (among other things) Google, which censors itself in China.
Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
I downvoted you. I don't wish to be mean, but what you said is just plain stupid.
> Otherwise, you're going to have to accept that some people want their information filtered by a third-party.
I totally agree with that. But I also believe that these people should not be allowed in a civilized society. Censorship is bad. End of question. There should be a zero-tolerance policy against any kind of censorship anywhere in the world.
And please, enough with the "what about the children?!" attitude. You are responsible for your children. The rest of the society doesn't have to suffer for them.
I can't tell if you're serious. If you're trolling, I applaud you. You got me. Now please leave.
If not, let me state unambigously that you have completely misconstrued what I said, ascribed opinions to me that I do not hold, and expressed one of the most horrifyingly totalitarian ideals I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I'm hesitant to write a more detailed reply because I'm not sure whether you've just fundamentally misunderstood what is being discussed or whether you're completely out of your mind. Do you truly wish for people to be imprisoned (or however else excluded from civilized society) for using parental controls on a prodcut they give to their children?
Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for, nor does it prevent me from dealing with any third parties that I want to do business with. I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor. Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business.
Google doesn't try and impose themselves between me and the information I'm looking for
Google's core business revolves around interposing itself between you and the information you're looking for. Google Image search excludes certain content from by default. Gmail filters spam by default. YouTube forbids many kinds of content. They do these things because people want these things. If they filtered information that people did want to access, they would be more likely to call it censorship instead of a useful service.
I may not like what they're doing in China but I recognize that they have a gun to their heads and that they are being forced into the role of censor.
Utterly untrue. Google is absolutely not forced to do business in China (or any other country that they alter their results on behalf of). They choose to censor themselves in order to access that market. (In crystal clear terms: Google censors itself on behalf of government in exchange for money.) If you are morally opposed to doing business with companies that are complicit in content filtering, then you must be morally opposed to using Google.
I contend that most people are not morally opposed to this -- they merely think they are. And further: that this is ok. But people would be better off admitting this than being selectively ignorant.
Google choosing to filter it's results for "tiananmen square" is not less bad than Apple choosing not to sell dictionaries that contain the term "cumdumpster" in the store that it operates. And yet people in the U.S. are prefer to engage in moral outrage over the latter. This is fucked up.
Apple, on the other hand, seems to delight in meddling in my business.
Apple is choosing to require content ratings in order to access the market of people who care about content ratings. There is no evidence anywhere that Apple's content restrictions are in place for any reason other than market pressure to conform to the same moderate standards that most of our culture does. (That is: saying they "delight" is a stretch). That you personally do not conform to those standards says nothing about whether Apple, a profit-seeking company, should do so. Also, I would point out that it is not your business being meddled with--Apple does not censor your content at all (and indeed, they did not censor Ninjawords' content). It is Apple's business. They operate a store and they choose what they are willing to sell in it.
